3 ms·

Lofty goals but I don’t see how free and private expression will be humane and free from harassment. People believe different things and whether we consider tha

by mikece 7y ago

Lofty goals but I don’t see how free and private expression will be humane and free from harassment. People believe different things and whether we consider that humane and harassing is totally subjective. Let’s tale HN as an example: someone promoting the MIT license to the detriment of the GPL is a reason to fight in this space. What about moral and political issues on which we disagree? I like the spirit but it just doesn’t seem realistic. (Though if it threatens Facebook and Twitter I’m in favor of it.)

mc32 7y ago
You give people tools to handle issues. You let them follow or block people. You allow them to join open or closed groups, groups which are okay with adult language or groups which encourage manners, some groups might be invite only, etc. In most instances given those kinds of options people can manage their interactions. You don’t have to shutdown people you don’t like on the platform, so long as they are not engaging in criminal activity.
- sprayk 7y ago
  > You don’t have to shutdown people you don’t like on the platform Unfortunately it's never framed as such. It's usually of the form "this person's words/ideas are objectively bad and your platform is bad by allowing them to post at all"
  - panarky 7y ago
    Some words and ideas are objectively, universally bad. Other words and ideas may not be universally bad, but I don't want to host them on my platform. My platform, my rules. Still other words and ideas are not universally bad, and I don't have a problem with them on my platform, but some of my users will. So my users need the ability to define their own rules and control who they interact with.
masukomi 7y ago
Scuttlebutt is a bit different because the tools of control are in the hands of the users. Sure, there will always be abusive jerks on any platform with an uncensored text field to type in. BUT in scuttlebutt we not only have the power to block people, but when we block them 2 things happen: 1. the block prevents anyone downstream from us from receiving that persons content via us (remember this is distributed P2P stuff) 2. the block message is public and can be commented on. Once a significant number of people block someone they become effectively cut off from the main body of the network. Think of it as an immune system response. When I block someone i comment on the block message. I might say "blocked for misogyny" and this signals other people who follow me and might have that person's content via another source, that they might want to take a look and preemptively block that person to protect themselves from that type of content. > What about moral and political issues on which we disagree? there are a number of people who disagree on Scuttlebutt. We seem to get along, or we just block them and don't have to hear it. Private groups are a thing on the roadmap that will enable folks to have their own topic specif stuff. So, if a bunch of republicans want to talk right wing things, they can do so without pissing off the democrats who want nothing to do with it, and without getting blocked out of the network. We're not there yet, but it's definitely in the plan.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  > Private groups are a thing on the roadmap that will enable folks to have their own topic specif stuff. So, if a bunch of republicans want to talk right wing things, they can do so without pissing off the democrats who want nothing to do with it, and without getting blocked out of the network. We're not there yet, but it's definitely in the plan. I think this is a tremendously naive TBH. There is an awful lot of internet regulatory discourse that is focused on "we must stop these people talking anywhere" much more so than "I don't want to see these people." It feels like Planetary needs to decide what it wants to be. If it's a decentralised censorship resistant network then it should just scrap it's T&Cs as they're meaningless. If it's not then the decentralised parts feel useless as it's actually just centralised in truth.

by mikece 7y ago

mc32 7y ago

You give people tools to handle issues. You let them follow or block people. You allow them to join open or closed groups, groups which are okay with adult language or groups which encourage manners, some groups might be invite only, etc. In most instances given those kinds of options people can manage their interactions. You don’t have to shutdown people you don’t like on the platform, so long as they are not engaging in criminal activity.

sprayk 7y ago
> You don’t have to shutdown people you don’t like on the platform Unfortunately it's never framed as such. It's usually of the form "this person's words/ideas are objectively bad and your platform is bad by allowing them to post at all"
- panarky 7y ago
  Some words and ideas are objectively, universally bad. Other words and ideas may not be universally bad, but I don't want to host them on my platform. My platform, my rules. Still other words and ideas are not universally bad, and I don't have a problem with them on my platform, but some of my users will. So my users need the ability to define their own rules and control who they interact with.

masukomi 7y ago

Scuttlebutt is a bit different because the tools of control are in the hands of the users. Sure, there will always be abusive jerks on any platform with an uncensored text field to type in. BUT in scuttlebutt we not only have the power to block people, but when we block them 2 things happen: 1. the block prevents anyone downstream from us from receiving that persons content via us (remember this is distributed P2P stuff) 2. the block message is public and can be commented on. Once a significant number of people block someone they become effectively cut off from the main body of the network. Think of it as an immune system response. When I block someone i comment on the block message. I might say "blocked for misogyny" and this signals other people who follow me and might have that person's content via another source, that they might want to take a look and preemptively block that person to protect themselves from that type of content. > What about moral and political issues on which we disagree? there are a number of people who disagree on Scuttlebutt. We seem to get along, or we just block them and don't have to hear it. Private groups are a thing on the roadmap that will enable folks to have their own topic specif stuff. So, if a bunch of republicans want to talk right wing things, they can do so without pissing off the democrats who want nothing to do with it, and without getting blocked out of the network. We're not there yet, but it's definitely in the plan.

Mindwipe 7y ago
> Private groups are a thing on the roadmap that will enable folks to have their own topic specif stuff. So, if a bunch of republicans want to talk right wing things, they can do so without pissing off the democrats who want nothing to do with it, and without getting blocked out of the network. We're not there yet, but it's definitely in the plan. I think this is a tremendously naive TBH. There is an awful lot of internet regulatory discourse that is focused on "we must stop these people talking anywhere" much more so than "I don't want to see these people." It feels like Planetary needs to decide what it wants to be. If it's a decentralised censorship resistant network then it should just scrap it's T&Cs as they're meaningless. If it's not then the decentralised parts feel useless as it's actually just centralised in truth.