4 ms·

This is a great comment. Honestly love the nuanced take, far too rare. The only point I would respectfully ad is that I'm not sure if we can enforce decentraliz

This is a great comment. Honestly love the nuanced take, far too rare. The only point I would respectfully ad is that I'm not sure if we can enforce decentralization. Many markets, like payment services (like Visa, Paypal), tend towards a few large companies. Personally, I think the first amendment is an example where we as a society (at least in the US) said that people's freedom of expression trumps people's freedom from discomfort. I'd apply the same standard to corporations. That said, I'm also still torn about whether it is right to impose that view on corporations. In a perfect world, I agree that enough decentralization that no single group can censor people's views is the best solution.

orthecreedence 8y ago
I think you're right, many things tend toward centralization, large networks and infrastructure (and sometimes difficult-to-solve problems) being among them. I personally "feel" (because I can't really form a hardened ideology around it) that the closer things get to infrastructure, the more neutral they should be. In other words, the more difficult it is to spin up a competitor to Company A, the more Company A should actively work to not censor or shape messages or ideas. I also agree we cannot enforce decentralization. My hope is that one day, we can see the benefits of it as a people and collectively decide to go that route without coercion of any kind. Wishful thinking, probably =]. That won't stop me from trying to convince others of the benefits, though.
- madeofmeat 8y ago
  > we cannot enforce decentralization Sure we can, it's called antitrust law.
  - raiflip 8y ago
    To an extent, yes. That can prevent monopolies, but it does not prevent oligopolies, and in this case those are just as dangerous. If you want to protect free speech, you need not just one or two, but probably hundreds of viable platforms. It's not obvious this is something the legal system can properly enforce.

orthecreedence 8y ago

I think you're right, many things tend toward centralization, large networks and infrastructure (and sometimes difficult-to-solve problems) being among them. I personally "feel" (because I can't really form a hardened ideology around it) that the closer things get to infrastructure, the more neutral they should be. In other words, the more difficult it is to spin up a competitor to Company A, the more Company A should actively work to not censor or shape messages or ideas. I also agree we cannot enforce decentralization. My hope is that one day, we can see the benefits of it as a people and collectively decide to go that route without coercion of any kind. Wishful thinking, probably =]. That won't stop me from trying to convince others of the benefits, though.

madeofmeat 8y ago
> we cannot enforce decentralization Sure we can, it's called antitrust law.
- raiflip 8y ago
  To an extent, yes. That can prevent monopolies, but it does not prevent oligopolies, and in this case those are just as dangerous. If you want to protect free speech, you need not just one or two, but probably hundreds of viable platforms. It's not obvious this is something the legal system can properly enforce.