5 ms·

The author refers to a decentralized web, which cannot be controlled by any individual, state, or corporation. I think this implies less censorship and regulati

The author refers to a decentralized web, which cannot be controlled by any individual, state, or corporation. I think this implies less censorship and regulation.

asutekku 8y ago
I’d love to be as idealistic, but when “free and uncensored” service has ever been ended up being something else than a cesspool for alt-right?
- leereeves 8y ago
  Any free and uncensored service is bound to contain opinions you don't agree with. That's kinda the point.
  - andy_ppp 8y ago
    How about free decentralised and self-policing - opinions are fine but creating a place where illegal activity can’t be stopped will lead to any platform (even with good intentions) being marginalised.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 8y ago
      People commit far more serious crimes in public parks than could ever be committed on a website. Is that a reason to close or marginalize public parks? Why not enforce the law on websites in a similar way: by arresting those responsible for illegal activity instead of attacking the venue?
      - andy_ppp 8y ago
        Well if you squint and look closely I don’t think I said anything other than it’s better to make these platforms self policing as a way to stop illegal content from appearing. Personally, the only thing I would ban is child pornography, and probably insightment to terrorism from right wing and islamists as well.
        naasking 8y ago
        I don't even know why you would qualify "incitement to terrorism" with right wing. Have you never heard of left wing terrorists? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
        ModernMech 8y ago
        From your link: "Incidents of left-wing terrorism dropped off at the end of the Cold War (circa 1989), partly due to the loss of support for communism.[14]" Conversely, there was an incident of right wing terrorism just last week. This follows a trend of increasing right-wing terrorist activity: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO... Yes, left wing terrorism exists, but today people are increasingly associating terrorism with right-wing ideologies because it's in our face and happening with increasing frequency. It's the same reason one might associate terrorism with Islam in 2001.
        naasking 8y ago
        I fail to see what any of this has to do with the other post. Should incitement to left wing terrorism somehow be ok on this new platform just because it may not currently be common? Furthermore, from your own link, the 2000s saw a flood of left wing terror attacks. That was not that long ago.
        ModernMech 8y ago
        It answers the question as to the qualification: because it is on people's mind due to recency and prevalence. If I asked you to name the first thing that comes to you mind when I say "Boeing" most would probably say the recent crash, not that they are headquartered in Washington.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  Before the term 'alt-right' was even coined there were AFA/Antifa plus a myriad of other leftist 'revolutionary' groups calling for the destruction of whatever happened to be in their way, islamists of every plumage vying for the position of the most vile representative of their ideology, a multitude of incarnations of Nazi-fetishism, etcetera. In other words, no need to point at a specific ideology to personify the tragedy of the commons. When there is no censorship there will be places where things are said you'd rather not hear. The best advice I can give is to avoid those places, that way you won't hear what they're saying. Even without censorship there are laws which limit what can be said so a censorship-free 'net does not necessarily equate a cesspool.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  Not just Nazi scum, but also piracy, child porn and gore/terror videos... turns out whenever you have a service that these four groups can use to spread their content they will flood it. I personally have no big problem with piracy as these days most of it is self-defense against "copy protections" that actually hinder legitimate buyers, but I'd be happy if the other three groups would disappear from the planet rather sooner than later.
- throwmeback 8y ago
  ...or alt-left...
  - stronglikedan 8y ago
    Very valid point, but you're not supposed to point it out here.
- iliketosleep 8y ago
  A decade or two ago it was the left which was vying for free and uncensored. Political fortunes have changed and now it's the right. Censorship is not free of political bias, and those on the wrong side of the current trend will flood platforms where the censorship does not exist. Those who are in favour of censorship must consider that political trends change over time, and one day they might be the ones being censored.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- smadge 8y ago
  The only example I can think of is Gab, which became a “cesspool for the alt-right” because it specifically marketed itself to that demographic. There have also been internet communities for the far left where members could post opinions that didn’t have purchase in mainstream outlets since the beginning of the web.
  - asutekku 8y ago
    8chan, jodel (local anonymous based message board popular in some parts of europe, similar to yikyak) to say few. I’m not trying to claim the others don’t exist.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  That happens because these placed only attract extremes and let them stay among themselves. The key to a platform that does not become a cesspool is to disallow isolation and bubble building for extreme oppinions. Yet, this bubble building is what people desire and the only way to create a successful social online service is to cater to that group building. Real life rarely provides similar comforting bubbles of likeminded and reaffirming people. You still need to interact with other people even if you disagree with their views. In front of your computer screen, the right forum for sharing your views is just a few button pressed away. It is too easy to avoid the rest. To play devil's advocate and take an extreme position for the sake of discussion: we don't more free speech. Instead, we need a to introduce a duty to listen that goes both ways: if you want to express your opinions, you must also listen to what others have to say and especially, how others respond to what you say. And you do not get to pick and choose who you listen to. In essence, nobody must ever have full and exclusive control over the shape of the community they are part of.
- EamonnMR 8y ago
  All of them before, what, 2014? That seemed to be the turning point.
- ataturk 8y ago
  That's just ridiculous. The Web was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. If you don't like the ideas, you're free to come up with your own. Censorship is not the answer. And alt-right is a reaction to the total beat down that less extreme reform movements such as the TEA Party and to a lesser extent, libertarians, tried to offer. The IRS was used to kill the TEA Party and now we find out John McCain was a major factor in why those targeted audits took place. Republicans just wanted their party back from the RINO assholes. I watched what happened with my own eyes--the RINO/GOPe played very dirty pool because they love big government, Big Brother, huge "defense" spending waste, pollution, misery, and total domination. In short, they're assholes and they doubled down when challenged. So now you get "alt-right" and you're fucking complaining about it!
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Systems which establish reputation, but don't ground it in strong and strictly unitary identity.
- nabnob 8y ago
  Why should a billion dollar corporation get to decide which opinions are acceptable and which views don't get a platform? I'm as far to the left as you can get. I used to support stricter moderation on social media platforms, but I'm putting my foot in my mouth now. In practice, these corporations are just as likely to censor leftist views as they are to censor right-wing views. Even people who study history and politics don't agree on definitions of racism, sexism, etc. There's a lot of nuance that a $10/hr contractor who sat through a one-day training on offensive content at Facebook won't understand. This type of censorship doesn't help progressives, it just lets corporations determine the window of acceptable discourse.
Proven 8y ago
Why not get rid of state (or at least as many laws as possible) rather than create a new “Dark” Internet on which most users would technically be criminals as all the ludicrous laws and regulations equally apply to Dark Internet

The author refers to a decentralized web, which cannot be controlled by any individual, state, or corporation. I think this implies less censorship and regulation.

asutekku 8y ago

I’d love to be as idealistic, but when “free and uncensored” service has ever been ended up being something else than a cesspool for alt-right?

leereeves 8y ago
Any free and uncensored service is bound to contain opinions you don't agree with. That's kinda the point.
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  How about free decentralised and self-policing - opinions are fine but creating a place where illegal activity can’t be stopped will lead to any platform (even with good intentions) being marginalised.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 8y ago
    People commit far more serious crimes in public parks than could ever be committed on a website. Is that a reason to close or marginalize public parks? Why not enforce the law on websites in a similar way: by arresting those responsible for illegal activity instead of attacking the venue?
    - andy_ppp 8y ago
      Well if you squint and look closely I don’t think I said anything other than it’s better to make these platforms self policing as a way to stop illegal content from appearing. Personally, the only thing I would ban is child pornography, and probably insightment to terrorism from right wing and islamists as well.
      - naasking 8y ago
        I don't even know why you would qualify "incitement to terrorism" with right wing. Have you never heard of left wing terrorists? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
        ModernMech 8y ago
        From your link: "Incidents of left-wing terrorism dropped off at the end of the Cold War (circa 1989), partly due to the loss of support for communism.[14]" Conversely, there was an incident of right wing terrorism just last week. This follows a trend of increasing right-wing terrorist activity: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO... Yes, left wing terrorism exists, but today people are increasingly associating terrorism with right-wing ideologies because it's in our face and happening with increasing frequency. It's the same reason one might associate terrorism with Islam in 2001.
        naasking 8y ago
        I fail to see what any of this has to do with the other post. Should incitement to left wing terrorism somehow be ok on this new platform just because it may not currently be common? Furthermore, from your own link, the 2000s saw a flood of left wing terror attacks. That was not that long ago.
        ModernMech 8y ago
        It answers the question as to the qualification: because it is on people's mind due to recency and prevalence. If I asked you to name the first thing that comes to you mind when I say "Boeing" most would probably say the recent crash, not that they are headquartered in Washington.
Yetanfou 8y ago
Before the term 'alt-right' was even coined there were AFA/Antifa plus a myriad of other leftist 'revolutionary' groups calling for the destruction of whatever happened to be in their way, islamists of every plumage vying for the position of the most vile representative of their ideology, a multitude of incarnations of Nazi-fetishism, etcetera. In other words, no need to point at a specific ideology to personify the tragedy of the commons. When there is no censorship there will be places where things are said you'd rather not hear. The best advice I can give is to avoid those places, that way you won't hear what they're saying. Even without censorship there are laws which limit what can be said so a censorship-free 'net does not necessarily equate a cesspool.
mschuster91 8y ago
Not just Nazi scum, but also piracy, child porn and gore/terror videos... turns out whenever you have a service that these four groups can use to spread their content they will flood it. I personally have no big problem with piracy as these days most of it is self-defense against "copy protections" that actually hinder legitimate buyers, but I'd be happy if the other three groups would disappear from the planet rather sooner than later.
throwmeback 8y ago
...or alt-left...
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  Very valid point, but you're not supposed to point it out here.
iliketosleep 8y ago
A decade or two ago it was the left which was vying for free and uncensored. Political fortunes have changed and now it's the right. Censorship is not free of political bias, and those on the wrong side of the current trend will flood platforms where the censorship does not exist. Those who are in favour of censorship must consider that political trends change over time, and one day they might be the ones being censored.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
smadge 8y ago
The only example I can think of is Gab, which became a “cesspool for the alt-right” because it specifically marketed itself to that demographic. There have also been internet communities for the far left where members could post opinions that didn’t have purchase in mainstream outlets since the beginning of the web.
- asutekku 8y ago
  8chan, jodel (local anonymous based message board popular in some parts of europe, similar to yikyak) to say few. I’m not trying to claim the others don’t exist.
gmueckl 8y ago
That happens because these placed only attract extremes and let them stay among themselves. The key to a platform that does not become a cesspool is to disallow isolation and bubble building for extreme oppinions. Yet, this bubble building is what people desire and the only way to create a successful social online service is to cater to that group building. Real life rarely provides similar comforting bubbles of likeminded and reaffirming people. You still need to interact with other people even if you disagree with their views. In front of your computer screen, the right forum for sharing your views is just a few button pressed away. It is too easy to avoid the rest. To play devil's advocate and take an extreme position for the sake of discussion: we don't more free speech. Instead, we need a to introduce a duty to listen that goes both ways: if you want to express your opinions, you must also listen to what others have to say and especially, how others respond to what you say. And you do not get to pick and choose who you listen to. In essence, nobody must ever have full and exclusive control over the shape of the community they are part of.
EamonnMR 8y ago
All of them before, what, 2014? That seemed to be the turning point.
ataturk 8y ago
That's just ridiculous. The Web was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. If you don't like the ideas, you're free to come up with your own. Censorship is not the answer. And alt-right is a reaction to the total beat down that less extreme reform movements such as the TEA Party and to a lesser extent, libertarians, tried to offer. The IRS was used to kill the TEA Party and now we find out John McCain was a major factor in why those targeted audits took place. Republicans just wanted their party back from the RINO assholes. I watched what happened with my own eyes--the RINO/GOPe played very dirty pool because they love big government, Big Brother, huge "defense" spending waste, pollution, misery, and total domination. In short, they're assholes and they doubled down when challenged. So now you get "alt-right" and you're fucking complaining about it!
dredmorbius 8y ago
Systems which establish reputation, but don't ground it in strong and strictly unitary identity.
nabnob 8y ago
Why should a billion dollar corporation get to decide which opinions are acceptable and which views don't get a platform? I'm as far to the left as you can get. I used to support stricter moderation on social media platforms, but I'm putting my foot in my mouth now. In practice, these corporations are just as likely to censor leftist views as they are to censor right-wing views. Even people who study history and politics don't agree on definitions of racism, sexism, etc. There's a lot of nuance that a $10/hr contractor who sat through a one-day training on offensive content at Facebook won't understand. This type of censorship doesn't help progressives, it just lets corporations determine the window of acceptable discourse.

Proven 8y ago

Why not get rid of state (or at least as many laws as possible) rather than create a new “Dark” Internet on which most users would technically be criminals as all the ludicrous laws and regulations equally apply to Dark Internet