11 ms·

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about lett

Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. From day one, life has been about letting in certain elements, and keeping out others. Without this selection, development and differentiation are impossible. Similarly we don't (and shouldn't) let every person into our homes, or our countries, or our servers. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them?

krapp 7y ago
>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? For the same reason it's seen as an obvious truth that everyone should be allowed to use a telephone, or send a letter in the mail. The internet is a communications platform, by definition it belongs to anyone who wants to use it. The internet being used by everyone no more makes the development or differentiation between cultures impossible than the planet Earth being used by everyone does. Also, because the anarchist hacker ethos that led to the internet was about liberating humanity from the constraints of gatekeepers - the systems of governance and proprietary control over access to information and freedom of expression that divided the world between the elite and the serf. What we're seeing now is not that model breaking down, but only beginning to come into its true potential. Yes, there may be negative effects to the ability of the internet to remove the barriers between cultures and communities, even states, but the world would be a lot worse still if it had never left the confines of a few universities simply to keep the normies out. The value of the transformative nature of the internet on civilization itself is greater than the value of the internet monoculture whose relevance it no longer recognizes.
- ataturk 7y ago
  Yes! I got into tech to liberate humanity. That's an excellent idealistic explanation for why. And I'm extremely annoyed and pissed off about how things have turned out lately. The "true potential" you mention must be to enable global tyranny by the looks of it. We aren't removing any barriers! Look at what Google and others are doing to try and bow to the worst humanity has to offer in China. They're enabling not just totalitarianism, they're like IBM helping the Nazis figure out who to send to the gas chambers. How quickly we forget. The Internet has become a means of spewing propaganda and using mass deception to distract and generally dis-empower citizens of every nation. This is not what it was supposed to do.
- gmfawcett 7y ago
  The ethos that led to the Internet belonged to the military-industrial complex, not the anarchist hackers.
- phs318u 7y ago
  Firstly, letter writing and the telephone are P2P technologies that assume pre-existing association of the (limited) participants in a given communication. While acknowledging that the internet can facilitate such use, a better analogue for the internet might be a notice board in a town square (a commons), via which means people elect to communicate singly or in groups. Citizens (an implicit membership qualification) are free to post or read flyers on various topics as they please within social or legal bounds. However they are (usually) not free to smear their shit all over the notice board, or torch notices, or set upon others that want to use the notice board. With respect to ownership, I assume you’re referring to a “right of use” rather than ownership of the underlying physical assets and services. Rights however, derive from somewhere and most rights carry an implicit purpose defining or otherwise informing the scope of the right. For example, the second amendment (right to bear arms) is not a free pass to commit murder or to otherwise use those arms to infringe on the legitimate rights of others. (Note, I’m not mentioning this in order to start a flame war. I’m making no statement regarding gun rights or related topic). Therefore I’d question where or how you believe this “ownership/use” right has arisen. With respect to the “anarchist hacker ethos” leading to the internet (and as someone old enough to have mostly been there), I’d suggest that no such thing occurred. You are assuming a single philosophy on the part of a great many people and organisations (such as the military) who contributed to the key infrastructure of the internet. What exactly is this hacker ethos? My definition likely differs significantly from ESR’s which may or may not differ from yours. Nevertheless you state a purpose, “liberating humanity from the constraints of gatekeepers”. I’d humbly suggest that the vast majority of users of these commons are not even aware that this is the intent, let alone agree with it, other than that their own ability to use this commons as they wish, even to the detriment of others, be uninfringed. Historically, gatekeepers have been few. On the internet however, much like in lawless towns past, the good burghers are forming posses of their own to protect the use of their little patch of the internet, via mechanisms such as moderating, rating, voting and karma based systems. Irrespective of the efficacy of such approaches, online communities are increasingly adopting them to filter out or limit the actions of bad citizens. Effectively, communities themselves are becoming the gatekeepers. And from my perspective, good on them. Because however imperfect these attempts might be, I’d much rather HN with its voting system than without (for example). I don’t support keeping the “normies” out, but I do support the right of each community to decide for itself whether and how they want to keep the arseholes out.
rolha-capoeira 7y ago
> Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. [That's not the kind of gatekeeping I meant, but to your statement...] According to whom? That's one social philosophy, I suppose, but I'd call it more anti-social. From day one, [human] life has been about sticking together to accomplish more than the sum of our parts. Outcasts aside, the idea that we have to keep others out to continue our way of life is dangerous and wrong, morally and practically.
- gmfawcett 7y ago
  If the Vandals were at the gates, would you invite them into your community? Or would you rather live until tomorrow? From day-one, humans have had to deal with the very real threat of other humans trying to kill them. Unless you subscribe to a social-Darwinist belief that the strongest tribe can rightfully wipe out or absorb every one of its enemies -- and the weaker tribes deserve to go -- your morality must reckon with the real problem of inter-tribal agression. Perhaps this is what you meant by "Outcasts aside, ..." But if so, then your argument reduces to "we shouldn't keep people out, except for those that we should."
  - rolha-capoeira 7y ago
    Feels like we've jumped the shark a bit, from talking about a free and open global Internet to talking about Vandals wanting to conquer our tribe? Obviously, we should keep people out that want to end our way of life, but that isn't where this conversation should be going. The original comment was talking about the privilege of early internet usage and escapism. And so to bring it back around, I can understand the nostalgia but I think wishing that the "rest" of the world would stop messing up "our" internet is a terrible thing to wish.
    - gmfawcett 7y ago
      We've hopped perhaps, but not jumped the shark. You did invoke morality and the human condition as the basis of your statements about the Internet. So a rebuttal on that front is fair game. We mustn't disregard that other people are applying the dangerous-tribe mentality to their reasoning about the Internet. There are extant fears of hackers and terrorists organizing and funding their operations online, right alongside the bake sales and peaceful marches. Some of those fears may be justified, and the actors may represent a danger to our way of life. But even if they were all boogeymen, the fear is real, and people act dangerously and irrationally when they are afraid. The existence of an open forum where even boogeymen can converse, itself, leads to a general unease and reactionist policy making. Balance is needed in these discussions, but we can't achieve that without acknowledging that there may be a few Vandals in our midst who've already made it past the gates. If we pretend otherwise, we will be constantly talking past each other.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them?... Because it is obvious. Everyone should be able to access the internet. Now, do the various internet communities have a right to ban people they don't want around? Yes. Absolutely. However, that's not "gate keeping", it's more accurately called Freedom of Association and the government is implicitly restricted from denying you such freedom via the First. (Provided you are in the US.) And, yes, Freedom of Association is wonderful. That's why we're not subjected to child porn, or nut jobs gunning down little old jewish and black ladies at worship, or 7 year old girls being disemboweled. Etc etc etc. If those people want to share their content, they can, they just need to do it in their own community where the rest of us don't have to see it. Because they are, mercifully for the rest of us, generally banned from our general communities. I guess I'm just hoping that what you meant was that people should be able to remove others from their community. Not that people should be able to remove others from the internet. (Although a lot of that stuff, I mean, I wouldn't lose any sleep if it became unavailable tomorrow. I'd probably cheer in fact.)
- y4mi 7y ago
  Uuh, that kind of content is legal in the USA? Are you sure? I mean it's a pretty common theme in your movies and shows for people to be incarcerated for owning that kind of content. But I'm not American... So I guess I'm just surprised. It's thankfully illegal where I'm at.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Let me be clear, the child porn is illegal here in the US. Thankfully. But yes, there are people in the US who post the video of their pet terrorists blowing away some old lady in a church or temple or mosque or what have you. It is not strictly speaking, illegal here. Neither are the death videos no matter how objectionable. To make matters worse, most of these low-lifes tend to congregate in the same well known places, which also host, you guessed it, child porn. So a community of real winners all around. All I was saying was that people like that should be kicked out of communities that aspire to cater to regular people. But they should not be kicked off the internet. As disgusting as their proclivities may be, they do still have Freedom of Speech. I just don't want them speaking in the places I frequent, and thankfully, the proprietors of those places agree with me in that regard. That's why Freedom of Association in a place like the US is extremely important. People and organizations have to be free not to be associated with that sort of content. It's as important as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression actually.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? All very well and good until one day society decides you are one of the people that needs to be removed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
braythwayt 7y ago
There is a fundamental difference between "Everyone should be allowed on the Internet," and, "Everyone should be allowed onto every social media site." Or, "Everyone on a social media site should be encouraged to interact with everyone else." For example, maybe everybody should be able to read the President's tweets. But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? At this point in time, replies to the President, or to journalists, &c seem to be used to engage with other people reading the President's tweets, not with the President. As a result, Twitter's design is that everybody can interact with each other, whether they like it or not. I think there are many middle grounds between "Everybody can access the Internet," and, "Only some people can access the Internet." One such middle ground is, "Everybody can access the Internet, but not everybody has near-frictionless ability to engage with strangers."
- krapp 7y ago
  >But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? The ability to directly and freely communicate with leaders (and for them to communicate with one another) is incredibly revolutionary. It is unfortunate that Twitter, of all places, a site whose entire purpose is top-of-mind contextless microblogging, is where this revolution is taking place, and that the President in question is basically a shitposting troll, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers. I still kind of love that the President of the United States can say something stupid on Twitter, and a million people, including other world leaders, can respond with scathing criticism, rebuttals and stupid memes, and no one gets sent to the camps, or gets a nuke dropped on them. > "Everybody can access the Internet, but not everybody has near-frictionless ability to engage with strangers." That's something to be implemented by any particular site as it sees fit, not the entire platform. As far as the internet is concerned, everybody should have near-frictionless access to everything and everyone if they want it, and if someone provides a platform for it. Universality of access, both to ideas and to people, is kind of the entire point.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I'm not sure this counts as meaningful communication? It's similar to how everyone can send a letter to their representative, but staffers mostly just classify them as pro or con on whatever issue you're writing about. Regardless of medium, many-to-one communication using freeform text doesn't scale. If you structure it, it's basically a poll.
dalore 7y ago
I don't like where this thought experiment goes. Replace internet with earth. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Earth, without ever being able to remove them? What you speak about is tribalism and is a genetic trait that used to help us survive. But we can rise above our animal instincts and be better.
- squish78 7y ago
  We've risen above our animal instincts and produced a culture with chronic anxiety, depression, and mental illness
- dhhdhdsbdb 7y ago
  Sure, but it's naive to think everyone will get along if we just wish for it hard enough. There need to be ways of limiting communities to subgroups. Anecdotally, an example is ladies tea events in social circles. If you ask women who are in to this, there is a different atmosphere by having only women present. Do guys want to join? Sure, but that's too bad. Not everything has to be for everyone.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    That's interesting, as there are segments of the population for whom keeping others out of their groups is seen as problematic
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? What does it mean to deny someone? If an OS provider, browser provider, internet provider, and website all agree to give someone the tools necessary to access a given website, why should you get involved? At the same time, if you want to run your own site who limits who can join, you should be free to do so. Many communities I'm a part of do this already (normally by limiting behavior, for example a forum for a given game only allows discussions related to that game, someone who keeps bringing up unrelated topics will find themselves under a series of increasing lengthy bans). If you want to build your own protocol and only let those you deem the cool kids use it, then you are free to do so. >Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? Put simply, we never had the choice because we didn't build the internet. The ones who did have the choice choose to open it up as wide a technically feasible. We don't get a say in this case, but we are free to make our own case where we can have a say.

krapp 7y ago

>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? For the same reason it's seen as an obvious truth that everyone should be allowed to use a telephone, or send a letter in the mail. The internet is a communications platform, by definition it belongs to anyone who wants to use it. The internet being used by everyone no more makes the development or differentiation between cultures impossible than the planet Earth being used by everyone does. Also, because the anarchist hacker ethos that led to the internet was about liberating humanity from the constraints of gatekeepers - the systems of governance and proprietary control over access to information and freedom of expression that divided the world between the elite and the serf. What we're seeing now is not that model breaking down, but only beginning to come into its true potential. Yes, there may be negative effects to the ability of the internet to remove the barriers between cultures and communities, even states, but the world would be a lot worse still if it had never left the confines of a few universities simply to keep the normies out. The value of the transformative nature of the internet on civilization itself is greater than the value of the internet monoculture whose relevance it no longer recognizes.

ataturk 7y ago
Yes! I got into tech to liberate humanity. That's an excellent idealistic explanation for why. And I'm extremely annoyed and pissed off about how things have turned out lately. The "true potential" you mention must be to enable global tyranny by the looks of it. We aren't removing any barriers! Look at what Google and others are doing to try and bow to the worst humanity has to offer in China. They're enabling not just totalitarianism, they're like IBM helping the Nazis figure out who to send to the gas chambers. How quickly we forget. The Internet has become a means of spewing propaganda and using mass deception to distract and generally dis-empower citizens of every nation. This is not what it was supposed to do.
gmfawcett 7y ago
The ethos that led to the Internet belonged to the military-industrial complex, not the anarchist hackers.
phs318u 7y ago
Firstly, letter writing and the telephone are P2P technologies that assume pre-existing association of the (limited) participants in a given communication. While acknowledging that the internet can facilitate such use, a better analogue for the internet might be a notice board in a town square (a commons), via which means people elect to communicate singly or in groups. Citizens (an implicit membership qualification) are free to post or read flyers on various topics as they please within social or legal bounds. However they are (usually) not free to smear their shit all over the notice board, or torch notices, or set upon others that want to use the notice board. With respect to ownership, I assume you’re referring to a “right of use” rather than ownership of the underlying physical assets and services. Rights however, derive from somewhere and most rights carry an implicit purpose defining or otherwise informing the scope of the right. For example, the second amendment (right to bear arms) is not a free pass to commit murder or to otherwise use those arms to infringe on the legitimate rights of others. (Note, I’m not mentioning this in order to start a flame war. I’m making no statement regarding gun rights or related topic). Therefore I’d question where or how you believe this “ownership/use” right has arisen. With respect to the “anarchist hacker ethos” leading to the internet (and as someone old enough to have mostly been there), I’d suggest that no such thing occurred. You are assuming a single philosophy on the part of a great many people and organisations (such as the military) who contributed to the key infrastructure of the internet. What exactly is this hacker ethos? My definition likely differs significantly from ESR’s which may or may not differ from yours. Nevertheless you state a purpose, “liberating humanity from the constraints of gatekeepers”. I’d humbly suggest that the vast majority of users of these commons are not even aware that this is the intent, let alone agree with it, other than that their own ability to use this commons as they wish, even to the detriment of others, be uninfringed. Historically, gatekeepers have been few. On the internet however, much like in lawless towns past, the good burghers are forming posses of their own to protect the use of their little patch of the internet, via mechanisms such as moderating, rating, voting and karma based systems. Irrespective of the efficacy of such approaches, online communities are increasingly adopting them to filter out or limit the actions of bad citizens. Effectively, communities themselves are becoming the gatekeepers. And from my perspective, good on them. Because however imperfect these attempts might be, I’d much rather HN with its voting system than without (for example). I don’t support keeping the “normies” out, but I do support the right of each community to decide for itself whether and how they want to keep the arseholes out.

rolha-capoeira 7y ago

> Gatekeeping is the only way communities can keep themselves healthy. There is no such thing as a universal 'community'. [That's not the kind of gatekeeping I meant, but to your statement...] According to whom? That's one social philosophy, I suppose, but I'd call it more anti-social. From day one, [human] life has been about sticking together to accomplish more than the sum of our parts. Outcasts aside, the idea that we have to keep others out to continue our way of life is dangerous and wrong, morally and practically.

gmfawcett 7y ago
If the Vandals were at the gates, would you invite them into your community? Or would you rather live until tomorrow? From day-one, humans have had to deal with the very real threat of other humans trying to kill them. Unless you subscribe to a social-Darwinist belief that the strongest tribe can rightfully wipe out or absorb every one of its enemies -- and the weaker tribes deserve to go -- your morality must reckon with the real problem of inter-tribal agression. Perhaps this is what you meant by "Outcasts aside, ..." But if so, then your argument reduces to "we shouldn't keep people out, except for those that we should."
- rolha-capoeira 7y ago
  Feels like we've jumped the shark a bit, from talking about a free and open global Internet to talking about Vandals wanting to conquer our tribe? Obviously, we should keep people out that want to end our way of life, but that isn't where this conversation should be going. The original comment was talking about the privilege of early internet usage and escapism. And so to bring it back around, I can understand the nostalgia but I think wishing that the "rest" of the world would stop messing up "our" internet is a terrible thing to wish.
  - gmfawcett 7y ago
    We've hopped perhaps, but not jumped the shark. You did invoke morality and the human condition as the basis of your statements about the Internet. So a rebuttal on that front is fair game. We mustn't disregard that other people are applying the dangerous-tribe mentality to their reasoning about the Internet. There are extant fears of hackers and terrorists organizing and funding their operations online, right alongside the bake sales and peaceful marches. Some of those fears may be justified, and the actors may represent a danger to our way of life. But even if they were all boogeymen, the fear is real, and people act dangerously and irrationally when they are afraid. The existence of an open forum where even boogeymen can converse, itself, leads to a general unease and reactionist policy making. Balance is needed in these discussions, but we can't achieve that without acknowledging that there may be a few Vandals in our midst who've already made it past the gates. If we pretend otherwise, we will be constantly talking past each other.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them?... Because it is obvious. Everyone should be able to access the internet. Now, do the various internet communities have a right to ban people they don't want around? Yes. Absolutely. However, that's not "gate keeping", it's more accurately called Freedom of Association and the government is implicitly restricted from denying you such freedom via the First. (Provided you are in the US.) And, yes, Freedom of Association is wonderful. That's why we're not subjected to child porn, or nut jobs gunning down little old jewish and black ladies at worship, or 7 year old girls being disemboweled. Etc etc etc. If those people want to share their content, they can, they just need to do it in their own community where the rest of us don't have to see it. Because they are, mercifully for the rest of us, generally banned from our general communities. I guess I'm just hoping that what you meant was that people should be able to remove others from their community. Not that people should be able to remove others from the internet. (Although a lot of that stuff, I mean, I wouldn't lose any sleep if it became unavailable tomorrow. I'd probably cheer in fact.)

y4mi 7y ago
Uuh, that kind of content is legal in the USA? Are you sure? I mean it's a pretty common theme in your movies and shows for people to be incarcerated for owning that kind of content. But I'm not American... So I guess I'm just surprised. It's thankfully illegal where I'm at.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Let me be clear, the child porn is illegal here in the US. Thankfully. But yes, there are people in the US who post the video of their pet terrorists blowing away some old lady in a church or temple or mosque or what have you. It is not strictly speaking, illegal here. Neither are the death videos no matter how objectionable. To make matters worse, most of these low-lifes tend to congregate in the same well known places, which also host, you guessed it, child porn. So a community of real winners all around. All I was saying was that people like that should be kicked out of communities that aspire to cater to regular people. But they should not be kicked off the internet. As disgusting as their proclivities may be, they do still have Freedom of Speech. I just don't want them speaking in the places I frequent, and thankfully, the proprietors of those places agree with me in that regard. That's why Freedom of Association in a place like the US is extremely important. People and organizations have to be free not to be associated with that sort of content. It's as important as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression actually.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

> Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? All very well and good until one day society decides you are one of the people that needs to be removed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

braythwayt 7y ago

There is a fundamental difference between "Everyone should be allowed on the Internet," and, "Everyone should be allowed onto every social media site." Or, "Everyone on a social media site should be encouraged to interact with everyone else." For example, maybe everybody should be able to read the President's tweets. But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? At this point in time, replies to the President, or to journalists, &c seem to be used to engage with other people reading the President's tweets, not with the President. As a result, Twitter's design is that everybody can interact with each other, whether they like it or not. I think there are many middle grounds between "Everybody can access the Internet," and, "Only some people can access the Internet." One such middle ground is, "Everybody can access the Internet, but not everybody has near-frictionless ability to engage with strangers."

krapp 7y ago
>But should Twitter necessarily be such that everybody can reply to the President's tweets? The ability to directly and freely communicate with leaders (and for them to communicate with one another) is incredibly revolutionary. It is unfortunate that Twitter, of all places, a site whose entire purpose is top-of-mind contextless microblogging, is where this revolution is taking place, and that the President in question is basically a shitposting troll, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers. I still kind of love that the President of the United States can say something stupid on Twitter, and a million people, including other world leaders, can respond with scathing criticism, rebuttals and stupid memes, and no one gets sent to the camps, or gets a nuke dropped on them. > "Everybody can access the Internet, but not everybody has near-frictionless ability to engage with strangers." That's something to be implemented by any particular site as it sees fit, not the entire platform. As far as the internet is concerned, everybody should have near-frictionless access to everything and everyone if they want it, and if someone provides a platform for it. Universality of access, both to ideas and to people, is kind of the entire point.
- skybrian 7y ago
  I'm not sure this counts as meaningful communication? It's similar to how everyone can send a letter to their representative, but staffers mostly just classify them as pro or con on whatever issue you're writing about. Regardless of medium, many-to-one communication using freeform text doesn't scale. If you structure it, it's basically a poll.

dalore 7y ago

I don't like where this thought experiment goes. Replace internet with earth. Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Earth, without ever being able to remove them? What you speak about is tribalism and is a genetic trait that used to help us survive. But we can rise above our animal instincts and be better.

squish78 7y ago
We've risen above our animal instincts and produced a culture with chronic anxiety, depression, and mental illness
dhhdhdsbdb 7y ago
Sure, but it's naive to think everyone will get along if we just wish for it hard enough. There need to be ways of limiting communities to subgroups. Anecdotally, an example is ladies tea events in social circles. If you ask women who are in to this, there is a different atmosphere by having only women present. Do guys want to join? Sure, but that's too bad. Not everything has to be for everyone.
- LocalH 7y ago
  That's interesting, as there are segments of the population for whom keeping others out of their groups is seen as problematic

SkyBelow 7y ago

>Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? What does it mean to deny someone? If an OS provider, browser provider, internet provider, and website all agree to give someone the tools necessary to access a given website, why should you get involved? At the same time, if you want to run your own site who limits who can join, you should be free to do so. Many communities I'm a part of do this already (normally by limiting behavior, for example a forum for a given game only allows discussions related to that game, someone who keeps bringing up unrelated topics will find themselves under a series of increasing lengthy bans). If you want to build your own protocol and only let those you deem the cool kids use it, then you are free to do so. >Why is it seen as an obvious truth that we should allow every single person onto the Internet, without ever being able to remove them? Put simply, we never had the choice because we didn't build the internet. The ones who did have the choice choose to open it up as wide a technically feasible. We don't get a say in this case, but we are free to make our own case where we can have a say.