5 ms·

Censorship and hate-speech are opposed when you have a single big venue that hosts all communication, since the venue can't logically filter and not-filter at t

Censorship and hate-speech are opposed when you have a single big venue that hosts all communication, since the venue can't logically filter and not-filter at the same time. However, when you have multiple, smaller venues, it's less of a problem. If one venue filters the communication that occurs within it, people who don't like that can take their communication elsewhere. If another venue hosts hate-speech, people who don't like that can take their communication elsewhere. It's not a zero-sum game.

pmichaud 8y ago
This is exactly the dynamic that's already creating the extreme polarization we're seeing, where people are living in self-selected echo chambers that have no common overlap with each other or, frankly, with reality much of the time. We have to do better than this.
- nine_k 8y ago
  "How do I only hear what I want to hear, but say whatever I like, with no external limitations?" I think the only way to achieve the above is just that: create an area with like-minded people, who think and speak similar enough things, also derogatorily called a filter bubble. Freedom is only freedom when it equally applies to people you like and people you don't like. Otherwise, it's a tyranny of your taste, however well-meaning it might be.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    In an analogue to censorship vs. filtering, we also want a society that has as much freedom as possible, but is also stable and not self-destructive. The two goals are, too, at odds.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      Yes, these goals are fundamentally at odds, and any close-to-current-optimum balance is a dynamic one. (Life is full of this; see more at "First noble truth". Alas.)
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Or: the only way to prevent the polarisation of society, is by throwing out the wish to only hear what you want to hear, but to say whatever you like.
hazz99 8y ago
This is a good solution for general "content filters", but how do you enforce a global filter -- i.e. for illegal content that everyone agrees should not be visible? Like CP? If this is not possible, I'm sure the government will find a way to legislate against it, and I'm not sure if I'd want to support it. I say this as a devout proponent of decentralized technology being the future.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Is there content that everyone agrees should not be visible? I don't think that holds for CP, for example. Unless, of course, "everyone" means "the majority", or even "a large majority".
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > for illegal content that everyone agrees should not be visible? Like CP? If everyone agrees it should not be visible, no one will be posting it; filters, censorship, and moderation address disagreements. Further, even if there is a broad consensus that, say, “child pornography” should not be available, there are disagreements over what constitutes child pornography.
  - hazz99 8y ago
    Yeah, by "everyone" I meant the significant majority -- just semantics. It's a very difficult problem. Most people agree that CP is horrible and should be removed. However, what happens when the media turns a very large majority against a certain ideal / content that should still be available, even if people disagree? Who decides what, and how do you enforce it? How is the arbiter of visible content? Until this problem is solved, or somehow sidestepped, I don't believe a decentralized web/social system is possible. I really want to be wrong about this! If anyone reading this has an idea of a solution, please message me!
- Steltek 8y ago
  Slightly unpalatable solution: Removing anonymity solves the illegal content problem because the police know exactly who to prosecute. Not great for those living in authoritarian countries but also has the possible upside of solving the "influencing foreign elections" problem. I wonder if there's a variant of Zooko's triangle for this. Moderated, anonymous, and decentralized?

pmichaud 8y ago

This is exactly the dynamic that's already creating the extreme polarization we're seeing, where people are living in self-selected echo chambers that have no common overlap with each other or, frankly, with reality much of the time. We have to do better than this.

nine_k 8y ago
"How do I only hear what I want to hear, but say whatever I like, with no external limitations?" I think the only way to achieve the above is just that: create an area with like-minded people, who think and speak similar enough things, also derogatorily called a filter bubble. Freedom is only freedom when it equally applies to people you like and people you don't like. Otherwise, it's a tyranny of your taste, however well-meaning it might be.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  In an analogue to censorship vs. filtering, we also want a society that has as much freedom as possible, but is also stable and not self-destructive. The two goals are, too, at odds.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Yes, these goals are fundamentally at odds, and any close-to-current-optimum balance is a dynamic one. (Life is full of this; see more at "First noble truth". Alas.)
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Or: the only way to prevent the polarisation of society, is by throwing out the wish to only hear what you want to hear, but to say whatever you like.

hazz99 8y ago

This is a good solution for general "content filters", but how do you enforce a global filter -- i.e. for illegal content that everyone agrees should not be visible? Like CP? If this is not possible, I'm sure the government will find a way to legislate against it, and I'm not sure if I'd want to support it. I say this as a devout proponent of decentralized technology being the future.

Vinnl 8y ago
Is there content that everyone agrees should not be visible? I don't think that holds for CP, for example. Unless, of course, "everyone" means "the majority", or even "a large majority".
dragonwriter 8y ago
> for illegal content that everyone agrees should not be visible? Like CP? If everyone agrees it should not be visible, no one will be posting it; filters, censorship, and moderation address disagreements. Further, even if there is a broad consensus that, say, “child pornography” should not be available, there are disagreements over what constitutes child pornography.
- hazz99 8y ago
  Yeah, by "everyone" I meant the significant majority -- just semantics. It's a very difficult problem. Most people agree that CP is horrible and should be removed. However, what happens when the media turns a very large majority against a certain ideal / content that should still be available, even if people disagree? Who decides what, and how do you enforce it? How is the arbiter of visible content? Until this problem is solved, or somehow sidestepped, I don't believe a decentralized web/social system is possible. I really want to be wrong about this! If anyone reading this has an idea of a solution, please message me!
Steltek 8y ago
Slightly unpalatable solution: Removing anonymity solves the illegal content problem because the police know exactly who to prosecute. Not great for those living in authoritarian countries but also has the possible upside of solving the "influencing foreign elections" problem. I wonder if there's a variant of Zooko's triangle for this. Moderated, anonymous, and decentralized?