3 ms·

I can see an answer, but is very unpopular, and conflicts with what many of consider the very principles of the internet. People need to be held accountable fo

I can see an answer, but is very unpopular, and conflicts with what many of consider the very principles of the internet. People need to be held accountable for what they post publicly online. Aggregators such as Facebook and Google should be sued, fined, or otherwise punished for publishing incorrect facts, and copyrighted material. They should not be extended special exemptions. Aggregators will need to verify the identity of anybody they are allowing to post, so they can in-turn sue, fine, or punish users. Might be the death of the internet as we know it today, but I'm not sure I will miss it.

zepto 8y ago
We’d need some public body to do the fact checking. Perhaps we could call it ‘The Ministry of truth’.
CptFribble 8y ago
Here is a corollary: public debate will have to be accompanied by real, verified identities. Maybe not the whole internet, but there will have to be a de-anonymized, trusted place.
- dexen 8y ago
  This idea has been tested extensively over several years, on many popular platforms, and failed all the way, every time it's been tried. Two prominent examples being Facebook and Twitter; the former requires real names and photos (fakery is grounds for ban), while the later provides "Verified" checkmark to verified users. In spite of that, FB carries a lot of mis-information and objectionable opinions, while the verified Twitter users engage in the same underhanded, despicable tactics and name-calling we got to expect from the anonymous accounts. Contrast that with HN, which accommodates the full spectrum from anonymous, through pseudonymous, to fully-linked to offline identity. The quality of discourse here is high, and yet the costs and burdens to both users, and moderators, are reasonably low. The idea of enforcing identities has been proven unhelpful. Plus, there are strong voices among unpopular and persecuted minorities that it puts them at elevated risk, both on- and offline. Just say no to this PII gathering scheme masquerading as "accountability".
  - jay_kyburz 8y ago
    Nobody has done it seriously, and as far as I'm aware, there are no laws currently that prevent you from just lying thought your teeth. Lets try a system where its effectively perjury to tell a lie on the internet :)
jazzyjackson 8y ago
I'm on this side, really. I'm building software that is balkanized-internet-ready. You plug a machine into a global network, you give access to information, you should stand by that information. The ISP's should be common carrier - they are the wires. But the hosts - the hosts should be responsible. Google Facebook Reddit et al want to have it both ways: editorial control (kick off untoward content) and immunity from responsibility. Pick One!

zepto 8y ago

We’d need some public body to do the fact checking. Perhaps we could call it ‘The Ministry of truth’.

CptFribble 8y ago

Here is a corollary: public debate will have to be accompanied by real, verified identities. Maybe not the whole internet, but there will have to be a de-anonymized, trusted place.

dexen 8y ago
This idea has been tested extensively over several years, on many popular platforms, and failed all the way, every time it's been tried. Two prominent examples being Facebook and Twitter; the former requires real names and photos (fakery is grounds for ban), while the later provides "Verified" checkmark to verified users. In spite of that, FB carries a lot of mis-information and objectionable opinions, while the verified Twitter users engage in the same underhanded, despicable tactics and name-calling we got to expect from the anonymous accounts. Contrast that with HN, which accommodates the full spectrum from anonymous, through pseudonymous, to fully-linked to offline identity. The quality of discourse here is high, and yet the costs and burdens to both users, and moderators, are reasonably low. The idea of enforcing identities has been proven unhelpful. Plus, there are strong voices among unpopular and persecuted minorities that it puts them at elevated risk, both on- and offline. Just say no to this PII gathering scheme masquerading as "accountability".
- jay_kyburz 8y ago
  Nobody has done it seriously, and as far as I'm aware, there are no laws currently that prevent you from just lying thought your teeth. Lets try a system where its effectively perjury to tell a lie on the internet :)

jazzyjackson 8y ago

I'm on this side, really. I'm building software that is balkanized-internet-ready. You plug a machine into a global network, you give access to information, you should stand by that information. The ISP's should be common carrier - they are the wires. But the hosts - the hosts should be responsible. Google Facebook Reddit et al want to have it both ways: editorial control (kick off untoward content) and immunity from responsibility. Pick One!