3 ms·

The conclusion I always seem to come to is you eventually want to be able to trust those within your network. I believe that requires some level of initial open

by loceng 7y ago

The conclusion I always seem to come to is you eventually want to be able to trust those within your network. I believe that requires some level of initial openness to prove who you are to a personally selected authority you decide to trust, who can verify your identity, and then allow you to communicate/engage with your real name or one-to-many pseudonyms, so if your actions are outside whatever rules exist for that network are violated then you could get a temporary timeout ("sit in the corner and think about what you did"), to permanent ban, to if it is considered criminal by society then reporting the person to appropriate authorities; we can't have inherent fear and distrust a chain of command, there is good in the world - we of course must stand strong, strongly together, and stand guard in order to fight against abuse of power, inauthentic behaviour - and so on - in chain of commands. How will users of the Gab network know if it is INSERT_NATION_NAME agents, paid and incentivized to manipulate them and cause unrest in a societal structure we call democracy? Perhaps they're not even thinking or caring about it and its consequences, perhaps they're even simply happy they have a helping hand? From what we've seen it takes very few bad actors to infiltrate a nation's foundational structures once the atmosphere of a population is disenfranchised enough, once we're disconnected and disengaged enough, and that has been accelerated by the cheap economies of scale the internet has afforded. At the end what I hope for is that security services of democracies are being intelligent and allocating resources to fully and carefully infiltrating these groups (carefully as to not escalate the situation) to know who those who are involved is: this of course comes down to potential overreach, which must be addressed not because you may more easily know/discover who bad actors are - but because it may be bad actors who actually someday may get hold or access to these systems.

jrumbut 7y ago
The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities. A fresh name is a fresh start and maybe you take the chance to do better this time. It seems like people feel free to post the most atrocious nonsense on Facebook under their real name or maybe using one of the apparently billions of fake accounts that look just like real people. I don't think trust really works in internet conversations with strangers, you can't ever know their motives even if you know their names.
- loceng 7y ago
  When it's civil conversation, then yes. Also my idea for a solution allows for pseudonyms - so then "a fresh name is a fresh start" is possible, or if something you've done is so unacceptable by the community then you should be witnessed and deal with the consequences that a reasonable and uncorrupted court deems appropriate. Part of atrocious nonsense, as you put you, is lack of accountability and peer pressure with enough mass to influence one's behaviour and thinking. Bubbles of algorithms amplify this problem, and what ends up happening is like with Gab - where what most consider atrocious behaviour simply finds its own platform which creates a bubble of its own without algorithms. Fake accounts as you mention, is one reason associating with an identity - at least confirmation it is associated with an identity, needs a solution. This becomes a problem when there isn't a chain of command and clear rules for accessing this information, when government is corrupt by bad actors. I'm not saying this identity should be forced on people, they should realize it is beneficial to join a network they trust until they don't - if that happens. With Facebook as an example, they've violated trust of people countless times and yet many still have FB accounts. If data and people were more mobile, more able to move their data around, then people could easily change networks - and let's say their alliances based on the leadership. Is the person in charge, leading a platform/network, someone who in the past called their users "dumb fucks" for trusting them with their data more favourable/trustworthy or someone who addresses issues with authenticity, fully, and while perhaps acknowledging their own mistakes vs. trying to write their bad past behaviour out of the story by not acknowledging it as pivotal moments of growth? Who they'd want at lead is of course for each person to decide based on what resonates with them as trustworthy, what behaviour they align with. Trust does work on internet conversations, assuming you've developed that skill - or could call it developing your intuition - assuming that your trust systems aren't locked up (ego mind coping mechanism) from trauma - which I'd say in this day is very common. Trust isn't binary - like with our conversation here, I'm sure you trust what I'm saying more than not - whether by the structure of my words and my trying to be careful and clear with my words and meaning, my responses. I'd trust my mother to pick me up somewhere if she says she will, however not with certain other things. And it's true, there will be a percentage of people who are really good at deceiving, being pathological liars, sociopaths, however that's certainly not the majority or where they're purposefully trying to sway someone for their own selfish gain.
byset 7y ago
You’re saying that intelligence agencies should infiltrate and spy on dissident groups? Pretty sure they do that already, but weird to see people advocate for it.
- loceng 7y ago
  To have that conversation we'd first have to define what is meant by dissident groups. If a group is known to be hateful with potential for or threatening violence, knowing their plans is a strategy - is counterterrorism. It's akin to police doing stings for drug busts, or perhaps less controversial - for child sex trafficking; should we turn a blind eye to that and not try to infiltrate that to prevent future harm? The ideal situation is everyone feels connected to everyone else and no one willfully will harm others, that's not what happens however when there is tolerance for hate. Hate will fester under surface building its potential energy until it's released - unless it is quelled by being adequately addressed. This potential energy is what bad actors have been using to rile up the population and is threatening democracy. We have to decide as a society what that line is - and that it isn't discussed is a problem. There's nuance required for it and a black-or-white solution - full open access for security services vs. complete blackout and being blind also isn't ideal. And is it even possible to allocate resources efficiently enough to do so, perhaps only being ready to enact resources once the hate starts boiling over noticeably? I believe the cheaper solution will be people subscribing to network(s) they trust, where it is known and accessible by the leaders and only the highest in the chain, and how their governance holds for accountability and safety will evolve over time - with best practices evolving. For example, if all data was instantly movable from Facebook - there would have been entrepreneurs immediately developing duplicate platforms, perhaps with better UXs and features, to capture the perhaps even small amount of users who stopped trusting Facebook's controller(s) - aka Mark Zuckerberg. Even if a small amount of users initially that would have been detrimental to Facebook enough due to network effects being hurt, enough hopefully that would have kept Facebook in line, in check. For each subsequent violation of trust and without an authentic, full response or explanation by leadership, the more fodder there would be for people to disperse to more trusted networks - and people trying to bring their network with them. This mobility is more inherent to and mirrors what real life trust networks look like. If someone violates your trust too strongly and you have no interest in giving them another chance, you can (in most cases) cut them out of your network. When your data is essentially hostage however, it's like you're married, living with them, and you don't have the financial freedom or support to escape an abusive spouse. It's interesting to see that Mastodon will grow further and allow Gab and the groups it is happy to support to continue conversing in a decentralized manner, and benefitting from tools that may or may not have the authors' blessings to be used for hate and violence. I've never said if this is negative or positive. Overall it isn't useful to not have conversation because that allows hate to fester, for potential energy to build up enough that then once the blister is ready to pop - it can make a mess, and by mess I mean terrorism to civil war. We now know this riling up of people has been actions and funded by tyrannical governments (bad actors in control of government in other nations) who want to see democracy collapse. The next Hitler is what we're trying to fight against, however with the internet, data, technology, the bad actors are intelligent enough to know they have to maintain some level of incognito - until perhaps one day they make a massive power move. Journalist Jamal Khashoggi¹ being cut apart alive only murdering him after, likewise the recent poisoning of Alexander Litvinenk² were brazen and obvious attacks - and becoming more and more obvious as to who is aligning to try to fail democracy and strengthen their control, and using tactics like hiring evil people and firms with no integrity like Cambridge Analytica³ who is happy to lie and/or blackmail, and promote propaganda to help bad actors win elections. Along with current U.S. administration - Trump and family - supporting and condoning these behaviours - Jared Kushner 'justified murder of Saudi dissident journalist Khashoggi, calling him a terrorist’⁴, and Trump trying to signal to worst of humanity that there is no law and they will get away with their horrific behaviour by Trump being expected to pardon Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher of war crimes⁵. And more confirmation of Russia’s propaganda efforts by deploying its team of propagandists to cover up the murder of 298 people on flight MH17⁶ to attempt to control the narrative around the world and within their own population - something that we know China does, and Russia is copying, on a whole other level and we should be equally responsive to knowing what pitfalls exist with censorship. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine... ³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ ⁴ https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2019/5/30/kushner-justified-khashoggis-murder-calling-him-a-terrorist https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2019/5/30/kushner-jus... ⁵ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crim... ⁶ https://www.thedailybeast.com/mh17-russia-deployed-its-trolls-to-cover-up-the-murder-of-298-people https://www.thedailybeast.com/mh17-russia-deployed-its-troll...

by loceng 7y ago

jrumbut 7y ago

The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities. A fresh name is a fresh start and maybe you take the chance to do better this time. It seems like people feel free to post the most atrocious nonsense on Facebook under their real name or maybe using one of the apparently billions of fake accounts that look just like real people. I don't think trust really works in internet conversations with strangers, you can't ever know their motives even if you know their names.

loceng 7y ago
When it's civil conversation, then yes. Also my idea for a solution allows for pseudonyms - so then "a fresh name is a fresh start" is possible, or if something you've done is so unacceptable by the community then you should be witnessed and deal with the consequences that a reasonable and uncorrupted court deems appropriate. Part of atrocious nonsense, as you put you, is lack of accountability and peer pressure with enough mass to influence one's behaviour and thinking. Bubbles of algorithms amplify this problem, and what ends up happening is like with Gab - where what most consider atrocious behaviour simply finds its own platform which creates a bubble of its own without algorithms. Fake accounts as you mention, is one reason associating with an identity - at least confirmation it is associated with an identity, needs a solution. This becomes a problem when there isn't a chain of command and clear rules for accessing this information, when government is corrupt by bad actors. I'm not saying this identity should be forced on people, they should realize it is beneficial to join a network they trust until they don't - if that happens. With Facebook as an example, they've violated trust of people countless times and yet many still have FB accounts. If data and people were more mobile, more able to move their data around, then people could easily change networks - and let's say their alliances based on the leadership. Is the person in charge, leading a platform/network, someone who in the past called their users "dumb fucks" for trusting them with their data more favourable/trustworthy or someone who addresses issues with authenticity, fully, and while perhaps acknowledging their own mistakes vs. trying to write their bad past behaviour out of the story by not acknowledging it as pivotal moments of growth? Who they'd want at lead is of course for each person to decide based on what resonates with them as trustworthy, what behaviour they align with. Trust does work on internet conversations, assuming you've developed that skill - or could call it developing your intuition - assuming that your trust systems aren't locked up (ego mind coping mechanism) from trauma - which I'd say in this day is very common. Trust isn't binary - like with our conversation here, I'm sure you trust what I'm saying more than not - whether by the structure of my words and my trying to be careful and clear with my words and meaning, my responses. I'd trust my mother to pick me up somewhere if she says she will, however not with certain other things. And it's true, there will be a percentage of people who are really good at deceiving, being pathological liars, sociopaths, however that's certainly not the majority or where they're purposefully trying to sway someone for their own selfish gain.

byset 7y ago

You’re saying that intelligence agencies should infiltrate and spy on dissident groups? Pretty sure they do that already, but weird to see people advocate for it.

loceng 7y ago
To have that conversation we'd first have to define what is meant by dissident groups. If a group is known to be hateful with potential for or threatening violence, knowing their plans is a strategy - is counterterrorism. It's akin to police doing stings for drug busts, or perhaps less controversial - for child sex trafficking; should we turn a blind eye to that and not try to infiltrate that to prevent future harm? The ideal situation is everyone feels connected to everyone else and no one willfully will harm others, that's not what happens however when there is tolerance for hate. Hate will fester under surface building its potential energy until it's released - unless it is quelled by being adequately addressed. This potential energy is what bad actors have been using to rile up the population and is threatening democracy. We have to decide as a society what that line is - and that it isn't discussed is a problem. There's nuance required for it and a black-or-white solution - full open access for security services vs. complete blackout and being blind also isn't ideal. And is it even possible to allocate resources efficiently enough to do so, perhaps only being ready to enact resources once the hate starts boiling over noticeably? I believe the cheaper solution will be people subscribing to network(s) they trust, where it is known and accessible by the leaders and only the highest in the chain, and how their governance holds for accountability and safety will evolve over time - with best practices evolving. For example, if all data was instantly movable from Facebook - there would have been entrepreneurs immediately developing duplicate platforms, perhaps with better UXs and features, to capture the perhaps even small amount of users who stopped trusting Facebook's controller(s) - aka Mark Zuckerberg. Even if a small amount of users initially that would have been detrimental to Facebook enough due to network effects being hurt, enough hopefully that would have kept Facebook in line, in check. For each subsequent violation of trust and without an authentic, full response or explanation by leadership, the more fodder there would be for people to disperse to more trusted networks - and people trying to bring their network with them. This mobility is more inherent to and mirrors what real life trust networks look like. If someone violates your trust too strongly and you have no interest in giving them another chance, you can (in most cases) cut them out of your network. When your data is essentially hostage however, it's like you're married, living with them, and you don't have the financial freedom or support to escape an abusive spouse. It's interesting to see that Mastodon will grow further and allow Gab and the groups it is happy to support to continue conversing in a decentralized manner, and benefitting from tools that may or may not have the authors' blessings to be used for hate and violence. I've never said if this is negative or positive. Overall it isn't useful to not have conversation because that allows hate to fester, for potential energy to build up enough that then once the blister is ready to pop - it can make a mess, and by mess I mean terrorism to civil war. We now know this riling up of people has been actions and funded by tyrannical governments (bad actors in control of government in other nations) who want to see democracy collapse. The next Hitler is what we're trying to fight against, however with the internet, data, technology, the bad actors are intelligent enough to know they have to maintain some level of incognito - until perhaps one day they make a massive power move. Journalist Jamal Khashoggi¹ being cut apart alive only murdering him after, likewise the recent poisoning of Alexander Litvinenk² were brazen and obvious attacks - and becoming more and more obvious as to who is aligning to try to fail democracy and strengthen their control, and using tactics like hiring evil people and firms with no integrity like Cambridge Analytica³ who is happy to lie and/or blackmail, and promote propaganda to help bad actors win elections. Along with current U.S. administration - Trump and family - supporting and condoning these behaviours - Jared Kushner 'justified murder of Saudi dissident journalist Khashoggi, calling him a terrorist’⁴, and Trump trying to signal to worst of humanity that there is no law and they will get away with their horrific behaviour by Trump being expected to pardon Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher of war crimes⁵. And more confirmation of Russia’s propaganda efforts by deploying its team of propagandists to cover up the murder of 298 people on flight MH17⁶ to attempt to control the narrative around the world and within their own population - something that we know China does, and Russia is copying, on a whole other level and we should be equally responsive to knowing what pitfalls exist with censorship. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine... ³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ ⁴ https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2019/5/30/kushner-justified-khashoggis-murder-calling-him-a-terrorist https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2019/5/30/kushner-jus... ⁵ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crim... ⁶ https://www.thedailybeast.com/mh17-russia-deployed-its-trolls-to-cover-up-the-murder-of-298-people https://www.thedailybeast.com/mh17-russia-deployed-its-troll...