6 ms·

> Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers. On one hand you are right, it's a huge benefit to developers as they are ab

> Decentralization is not a feature for the end-user, it's a feature to developers. On one hand you are right, it's a huge benefit to developers as they are able to create new services that leverage the strength of the existing network. Such as Peertube getting subscription and commenting features from other servers for free, and it “just works”. Imagine a youtube competitor wanting to leverage Twitter in the same way. Highly unlikely that it would be allowed, and even if it did, the integration would be Twitter-specific. On the other hand, (at least some) end-users see decentralisation as a huge benefit, and at least in my case it gives me confidence that the whim of a single company can't ruin the experience for me, or even take away the platform altogether. Most people may not consider this, but some people definitely do. And hopefully that number will increase over time.

Nursie 8y ago
Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. "Nobody can censor us!" is absolutely, unfortunately equivalent to - "Nobody can take down race hatred, online harassment, child abuse images or other evil shit" And we've adequate evidence now to show that humans will use such platforms to post exactly that sort of stuff. For instance one of the bitcoin forks that allows larger data payloads had child abuse images uploaded to it, in an immutable, permanent way. Many/most people are not OK with that. I'm not yet seeing a way to balance these concerns.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Just b/c something is decentralized doesn't mean you can't take it down or hide it.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Exactly. Even a centralized filtering mechanism can be curated by the community. The important point is that each server gets to decide whether to use it. If a user considers their server is not doing a good enough job with this, they simply move to another server.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      That's not a solution for illegal or harassing content.
- feanaro 8y ago
  > Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Citation needed, please. This really sounds like your personal opinion presented as a general statement.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    Look at the news. Look at the outcry over teen suicides and how facebook/twitter didn't do enough to protect them. Look at the laws around child abuse imagery and how much popular support they get. It's not just my opinion.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      I agree. Here's the current Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care in England: https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 He's the most tech-focussed minister we have. He's pushing tech pretty hard, so for him to be saying this should be a clear signal to the industry. See also the consultationn for the online harms white paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi... It's really weird that this extremist position ("any removal of content is censorship, and censorship is always bad") is so prominent on HN whenusers of products have shown, every single time, they they don't want it.
      - Fnoord 8y ago
        If there is censorship possible, the government will use and potentially abuse it at some point. I've seen darknets (or a P2P networks) which were hard to censor (Tor) but also where you could influence via supply and demand (Freenet, IPFS).
      - feanaro 8y ago
        > It's really weird that this extremist position ("any removal of content is censorship, and censorship is always bad") is so prominent on HN whenusers of products have shown, every single time, they they don't want it. Why are you trying to paint this as an extremist position? Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. Any removal of content is not censorship and that position is clearly nonsense. E.g. a commercial entity can do what it wants with its own property, including removing content. What is universally negative is requiring all future technologies to have loopholes through which things can be deleted, thereby preventing some designs outright. I think this parent comment sums it up quite nicely why having such systems is something very reasonable and desirable: > On the other hand, (at least some) end-users see decentralisation as a huge benefit, and at least in my case it gives me confidence that the whim of a single company can't ruin the experience for me, or even take away the platform altogether.
- lokedhs 8y ago
  I'm mostly ambivalent to the censorship debate. What I mean by that is that I can see valid points on both sides. Most Mastodon instances have pretty strict policies with regards to the speech that is allowed on them. Many instances block federation with other instances whose policies they don't agree with. Other instances allow pretty much everything (they are usually called “free speech zones”). The result is what you would expect, and they end up being mostly blocked. I'd argue that it works reasonably well for now (but it may of course change if the Fediverse grows further). Everybody is allowed to say what they want on the Fediverse, but others are not forced to listen to it.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  In the grand scheme of things censorship is the more dangerous thing though. People often don't care about censorship until it affects them, but once it does, they care a lot. There's a reason why the first amendment protects speech. It's the building block for an improving society.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    As far as I'm aware, the first amendment doesn't protect the distribution of child abuse images, or allow harassment, etc. So we already have lines on 'speech'. I agree, censorship can be sinister, but I disagree that it's so sinister that we have to allow everything for fear of allowing nothing. Society already doesn't work that way.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      > As far as I'm aware, the first amendment doesn't protect the distribution of child abuse images, or allow harassment, etc. Yes, but those are already illegal. That does not (or at the very least should not) mean politicians get to dictate what kind of technology is allowed. You cannot outlaw a technology (or require a backdoor) simply because it may not support deletion as a feature by virtue of being decentralized.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        I'm not sure I'm arguing for a ban on decentralised tech as a whole, to go back to my first post on the topic - far from being a selling point, decentralisation is a negative feature for a lot of people. Centralisation provides points of control that are useful way beyond political suppression of speech, to allow (for instance) transaction reversal and material take down. The post I replied to was singing the praises of decentralisation, as if the idea that nobody can control what's said and done is a universal positive. I'm just putting across the counterpoint that it's not, there are circumstances where unilateral control could be (and is, by large sections of the population) seen as a good thing. > You cannot outlaw a technology (or require a backdoor) simply because it may not support deletion as a feature by virtue of being decentralized. I mean, you can. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing to do, but there's no real reason a government couldn't make exactly such a rule. Whether it could be enforceable in any way is a different matter.

Nursie 8y ago

Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. "Nobody can censor us!" is absolutely, unfortunately equivalent to - "Nobody can take down race hatred, online harassment, child abuse images or other evil shit" And we've adequate evidence now to show that humans will use such platforms to post exactly that sort of stuff. For instance one of the bitcoin forks that allows larger data payloads had child abuse images uploaded to it, in an immutable, permanent way. Many/most people are not OK with that. I'm not yet seeing a way to balance these concerns.

speedplane 8y ago
> Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Just b/c something is decentralized doesn't mean you can't take it down or hide it.
- feanaro 8y ago
  Exactly. Even a centralized filtering mechanism can be curated by the community. The important point is that each server gets to decide whether to use it. If a user considers their server is not doing a good enough job with this, they simply move to another server.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    That's not a solution for illegal or harassing content.
feanaro 8y ago
> Whilst I appreciate your views, for many/most the idea that no party can affect or take down the content is a negative. Citation needed, please. This really sounds like your personal opinion presented as a general statement.
- Nursie 8y ago
  Look at the news. Look at the outcry over teen suicides and how facebook/twitter didn't do enough to protect them. Look at the laws around child abuse imagery and how much popular support they get. It's not just my opinion.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    I agree. Here's the current Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care in England: https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1089864139835670528 He's the most tech-focussed minister we have. He's pushing tech pretty hard, so for him to be saying this should be a clear signal to the industry. See also the consultationn for the online harms white paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi... It's really weird that this extremist position ("any removal of content is censorship, and censorship is always bad") is so prominent on HN whenusers of products have shown, every single time, they they don't want it.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      If there is censorship possible, the government will use and potentially abuse it at some point. I've seen darknets (or a P2P networks) which were hard to censor (Tor) but also where you could influence via supply and demand (Freenet, IPFS).
    - feanaro 8y ago
      > It's really weird that this extremist position ("any removal of content is censorship, and censorship is always bad") is so prominent on HN whenusers of products have shown, every single time, they they don't want it. Why are you trying to paint this as an extremist position? Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. Any removal of content is not censorship and that position is clearly nonsense. E.g. a commercial entity can do what it wants with its own property, including removing content. What is universally negative is requiring all future technologies to have loopholes through which things can be deleted, thereby preventing some designs outright. I think this parent comment sums it up quite nicely why having such systems is something very reasonable and desirable: > On the other hand, (at least some) end-users see decentralisation as a huge benefit, and at least in my case it gives me confidence that the whim of a single company can't ruin the experience for me, or even take away the platform altogether.
lokedhs 8y ago
I'm mostly ambivalent to the censorship debate. What I mean by that is that I can see valid points on both sides. Most Mastodon instances have pretty strict policies with regards to the speech that is allowed on them. Many instances block federation with other instances whose policies they don't agree with. Other instances allow pretty much everything (they are usually called “free speech zones”). The result is what you would expect, and they end up being mostly blocked. I'd argue that it works reasonably well for now (but it may of course change if the Fediverse grows further). Everybody is allowed to say what they want on the Fediverse, but others are not forced to listen to it.
Mirioron 8y ago
In the grand scheme of things censorship is the more dangerous thing though. People often don't care about censorship until it affects them, but once it does, they care a lot. There's a reason why the first amendment protects speech. It's the building block for an improving society.
- Nursie 8y ago
  As far as I'm aware, the first amendment doesn't protect the distribution of child abuse images, or allow harassment, etc. So we already have lines on 'speech'. I agree, censorship can be sinister, but I disagree that it's so sinister that we have to allow everything for fear of allowing nothing. Society already doesn't work that way.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    > As far as I'm aware, the first amendment doesn't protect the distribution of child abuse images, or allow harassment, etc. Yes, but those are already illegal. That does not (or at the very least should not) mean politicians get to dictate what kind of technology is allowed. You cannot outlaw a technology (or require a backdoor) simply because it may not support deletion as a feature by virtue of being decentralized.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      I'm not sure I'm arguing for a ban on decentralised tech as a whole, to go back to my first post on the topic - far from being a selling point, decentralisation is a negative feature for a lot of people. Centralisation provides points of control that are useful way beyond political suppression of speech, to allow (for instance) transaction reversal and material take down. The post I replied to was singing the praises of decentralisation, as if the idea that nobody can control what's said and done is a universal positive. I'm just putting across the counterpoint that it's not, there are circumstances where unilateral control could be (and is, by large sections of the population) seen as a good thing. > You cannot outlaw a technology (or require a backdoor) simply because it may not support deletion as a feature by virtue of being decentralized. I mean, you can. I'm not necessarily saying it's a good thing to do, but there's no real reason a government couldn't make exactly such a rule. Whether it could be enforceable in any way is a different matter.