5 ms·

It used to be much harder to knock someone you didn't like offline. You used to have to organize a DDOS attack. But now, all you have to do is organize a much e

It used to be much harder to knock someone you didn't like offline. You used to have to organize a DDOS attack. But now, all you have to do is organize a much easier mass-flagging attack. We need to update our threat models to account for how unreliable major platforms have become. We can no longer rely on these companies. After big tech spent so much time investing in their own infrastructure, they are undermining themselves like this. We need to just accept that a major liability of using a major platform like this is that your content may be removed and your account deleted, for unknown reasons. Want to host your podcasts? Well don't rely solely on Apple Google or YouTube, they are not up for the job. Instead, you have to span it on multiple platforms and tell your audience where to find you if you get deleted.

chii 7y ago
This concept of de-platforming is becoming more and more prevailant. The big techs cannot differentiate between legitimate de-platforming vs a Denial of Service de-platforming. I think while the big techs have a legitimate concern for de-platforming things that are deemed hate speech, this same power can be utilized by individuals to target a de-platforming for people whose opinions they don't like. I think big techs should consider a public-court like system - where in order to deplatform, a jury of peers should be used to make judgements.
- eitland 7y ago
  > The big techs cannot differentiate between legitimate de-platforming I can try to give some guidelines, I'd love to see improvements (and also like to know if anyone points out I'm wrong :-) Legitimate de-platforming is a) when an individual or organization is removed from the platform based on a request from law enforcement followed by a review by the platforms staff to verify that the request is genuine and that the reasons stated are valid. The account should still not be deleted for a certain number of days, and if requested by the user or organization, relevant details should be made available to them to take fight it in court against the relevant law enforcement agency. b) when an individual or organization is removed from the platform based on an written policy, known by the users of the platform in advance and verified by a second team. Upon request an explanation of why the account was deplatformed should be made available.
  - apostacy 7y ago
    > b) when an individual or organization is removed from the platform based on an written policy, known by the users of the platform in advance and verified by a second team. Upon request an explanation of why the account was deplatformed should be made available. That alone would be great. They should have to justify exactly why they removed someone. And by making it explicit, they open a pathway for legal action. But more importantly, these platforms need to be declared public utilities and forced to be transparent. This is not controversial and is usually welcomed by the public when it happens. Most public utilities that we enjoy today started out as being completely private. The fire dept would let your house burn down if you were late with your bills. The telegraph company would ban you from their private network if you were a journalist that criticized them. The electric companies would make you agree to onerous terms to get electricity. And currently we have this mess with private medical insurance companies and tech platforms. It is time for us to nationalize Facebook.
    - eitland 7y ago
      Edit: added quotes. Added part about not wanting any social network nationalized. > But more importantly, these platforms need to be declared public utilities and forced to be transparent. This is not controversial and is usually welcomed by the public when it happens. Even just a real threat that it might happen might, if it became visible enough, drive some introspection and push them in right direction. > It is time for us to nationalize Facebook. Assuming you are from US (but mostly valid anyway): Not sure if I'd want your president, now or in 6 years, to have more say over the biggest social media networks than they already have.
    - philh 7y ago
      > It is time for us to nationalize Facebook. Note that even accepting your previous paragraphs, this doesn't follow. Most public utilities are already not nationalized afaik; I'm not american, but none of my electricity, gas, water, phone or internet are provided by government-owned or -operated companies, and I'd be surprised if it was much different over there. They're regulated, but not nationalized.
  - zo1 7y ago
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  There already are laws, regulations and courts that rule on the exceptions to free speech. This should never be in the hands of a private company to decide. These 'platforms' perpetually dance around issues and present a different face dependent on who they talk to on what issue.
gsich 7y ago
>We need to just accept that a major liability of using a major platform like this is that your content may be removed and your account deleted, for unknown reasons. No we don't. You make it sound like it's a law of nature how these companies behave. It's not.
- sv9 7y ago
  What's that Upton Sinclair quote everyone here loves? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." It's hard to admit there's a problem when you're part of the problem.
mirimir 7y ago
> Instead, you have to span [your content] on multiple platforms and tell your audience where to find you if you get deleted. OK, so what's the safest holdout?
- raarts 7y ago
  Bitchute seems to be popular.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Mu.[1] The principle of "spread across multiple platforms" is fundamentally inconsistent with a "safest holdout". You need to hedge your bets. You need to realise that free services can be discontinued, paid contracts can be terminated, content or accounts can be flagged, copyright or patent claims may be asserted (more the former than the latter, generally, but expect patent claims on more capable systems), domains may be hijacked or squatted, and self-hosted systems may be DDoSed, require ongoing maintenance, moderation (if user / third-party content is permitted), etc. POSSE -- Publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere -- is probable the most robust option overall. https://indieweb.org/POSSE https://indieweb.org/POSSE ________________________________ Notes: 1. A Japanese word, often translated as "unask the question". https://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=583 https://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=583
  - apostacy 7y ago
    Yes, what I've been saying is that we're moving back to where we were 20 years ago. We're moving back to a hosting model where you can not completely rely on any hosting company to get the job done. Big tech companies changed things a lot, and developed very sophisticated infrastructure that we could not compete with. Nobody could compete with YouTube for awhile. But now, YouTube has made itself so unreliable, that people are forced to find new video hosting services, and people will put up with slower speeds for more reliability.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      > We're moving back to a hosting model where you can not completely rely on any hosting company to get the job done. That's become my mantra about anonymization: that you can't trust any one system/provider, so it's prudent to distribute trust. Basically, what Chaum said, so many years ago. But that's harder with hosting. Sure, if you lease a domain, you can easily point to different IPs. But then, what happens if you lose the domain? And for people who don't lease domains, how will your followers find your other sites? Once the one they were hitting is gone, I mean. Some will bookmark all of them, for sure. But not most, I bet. Search services would help, but I suspect that'd be iffy.
globular-toast 7y ago
We also need to update our definition of freedom of speech. It's commonly repeated on the Internet that freedom of speech doesn't cover private platforms. That's true because in 1791, when the First Amendment was written, only the government could impact individual freedom of speech. But now large companies can do it very effectively because they own the platforms everyone is using. Sure, you can still express yourself by shouting on the street or self-publishing a book, but that isn't a at all in the spirit of the Constitution. In practice, individuals can be silenced.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The principle of common carriers, over which all (lawful) conduct is permitted, including postal, telegraph, and telephone services, as well as equal-time and community-access broadcast services, offer alternate models. I'm finding the "private platform, no free-speech rights" argument increasingly thin on platforms aggreggating hundreds of millions or billions of eyes and ears, and increasingly inextricably bound to social, commercial, and governmental institutions and activities. At the same time, the wild west alternative has also proved untenable, with strong civil-rights groups including EFF and ACLU increasingly acknowledging and accommodating this reality. There's a middle way.
- valuearb 7y ago
  That’s exactly the spirit of the constitution. Back then few people could afford a printing press, so your ability to reach the masses could easily be frustrated by the refusal of private entities that did. But the founding fathers never thought it necessary to regulate printing presses to ensure the access of minority opinions. The First Amendment was explicitly written to prevent that kind of social intervention. I think they’d tell you, set up your own server and your own service, it’s not hard.

chii 7y ago

This concept of de-platforming is becoming more and more prevailant. The big techs cannot differentiate between legitimate de-platforming vs a Denial of Service de-platforming. I think while the big techs have a legitimate concern for de-platforming things that are deemed hate speech, this same power can be utilized by individuals to target a de-platforming for people whose opinions they don't like. I think big techs should consider a public-court like system - where in order to deplatform, a jury of peers should be used to make judgements.

eitland 7y ago
> The big techs cannot differentiate between legitimate de-platforming I can try to give some guidelines, I'd love to see improvements (and also like to know if anyone points out I'm wrong :-) Legitimate de-platforming is a) when an individual or organization is removed from the platform based on a request from law enforcement followed by a review by the platforms staff to verify that the request is genuine and that the reasons stated are valid. The account should still not be deleted for a certain number of days, and if requested by the user or organization, relevant details should be made available to them to take fight it in court against the relevant law enforcement agency. b) when an individual or organization is removed from the platform based on an written policy, known by the users of the platform in advance and verified by a second team. Upon request an explanation of why the account was deplatformed should be made available.
- apostacy 7y ago
  > b) when an individual or organization is removed from the platform based on an written policy, known by the users of the platform in advance and verified by a second team. Upon request an explanation of why the account was deplatformed should be made available. That alone would be great. They should have to justify exactly why they removed someone. And by making it explicit, they open a pathway for legal action. But more importantly, these platforms need to be declared public utilities and forced to be transparent. This is not controversial and is usually welcomed by the public when it happens. Most public utilities that we enjoy today started out as being completely private. The fire dept would let your house burn down if you were late with your bills. The telegraph company would ban you from their private network if you were a journalist that criticized them. The electric companies would make you agree to onerous terms to get electricity. And currently we have this mess with private medical insurance companies and tech platforms. It is time for us to nationalize Facebook.
  - eitland 7y ago
    Edit: added quotes. Added part about not wanting any social network nationalized. > But more importantly, these platforms need to be declared public utilities and forced to be transparent. This is not controversial and is usually welcomed by the public when it happens. Even just a real threat that it might happen might, if it became visible enough, drive some introspection and push them in right direction. > It is time for us to nationalize Facebook. Assuming you are from US (but mostly valid anyway): Not sure if I'd want your president, now or in 6 years, to have more say over the biggest social media networks than they already have.
  - philh 7y ago
    > It is time for us to nationalize Facebook. Note that even accepting your previous paragraphs, this doesn't follow. Most public utilities are already not nationalized afaik; I'm not american, but none of my electricity, gas, water, phone or internet are provided by government-owned or -operated companies, and I'd be surprised if it was much different over there. They're regulated, but not nationalized.
- zo1 7y ago
PeterStuer 7y ago
There already are laws, regulations and courts that rule on the exceptions to free speech. This should never be in the hands of a private company to decide. These 'platforms' perpetually dance around issues and present a different face dependent on who they talk to on what issue.

gsich 7y ago

>We need to just accept that a major liability of using a major platform like this is that your content may be removed and your account deleted, for unknown reasons. No we don't. You make it sound like it's a law of nature how these companies behave. It's not.

sv9 7y ago
What's that Upton Sinclair quote everyone here loves? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." It's hard to admit there's a problem when you're part of the problem.

mirimir 7y ago

> Instead, you have to span [your content] on multiple platforms and tell your audience where to find you if you get deleted. OK, so what's the safest holdout?

raarts 7y ago
Bitchute seems to be popular.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Mu.[1] The principle of "spread across multiple platforms" is fundamentally inconsistent with a "safest holdout". You need to hedge your bets. You need to realise that free services can be discontinued, paid contracts can be terminated, content or accounts can be flagged, copyright or patent claims may be asserted (more the former than the latter, generally, but expect patent claims on more capable systems), domains may be hijacked or squatted, and self-hosted systems may be DDoSed, require ongoing maintenance, moderation (if user / third-party content is permitted), etc. POSSE -- Publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere -- is probable the most robust option overall. https://indieweb.org/POSSE https://indieweb.org/POSSE ________________________________ Notes: 1. A Japanese word, often translated as "unask the question". https://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=583 https://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=583
- apostacy 7y ago
  Yes, what I've been saying is that we're moving back to where we were 20 years ago. We're moving back to a hosting model where you can not completely rely on any hosting company to get the job done. Big tech companies changed things a lot, and developed very sophisticated infrastructure that we could not compete with. Nobody could compete with YouTube for awhile. But now, YouTube has made itself so unreliable, that people are forced to find new video hosting services, and people will put up with slower speeds for more reliability.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    > We're moving back to a hosting model where you can not completely rely on any hosting company to get the job done. That's become my mantra about anonymization: that you can't trust any one system/provider, so it's prudent to distribute trust. Basically, what Chaum said, so many years ago. But that's harder with hosting. Sure, if you lease a domain, you can easily point to different IPs. But then, what happens if you lose the domain? And for people who don't lease domains, how will your followers find your other sites? Once the one they were hitting is gone, I mean. Some will bookmark all of them, for sure. But not most, I bet. Search services would help, but I suspect that'd be iffy.

globular-toast 7y ago

We also need to update our definition of freedom of speech. It's commonly repeated on the Internet that freedom of speech doesn't cover private platforms. That's true because in 1791, when the First Amendment was written, only the government could impact individual freedom of speech. But now large companies can do it very effectively because they own the platforms everyone is using. Sure, you can still express yourself by shouting on the street or self-publishing a book, but that isn't a at all in the spirit of the Constitution. In practice, individuals can be silenced.

dredmorbius 7y ago
The principle of common carriers, over which all (lawful) conduct is permitted, including postal, telegraph, and telephone services, as well as equal-time and community-access broadcast services, offer alternate models. I'm finding the "private platform, no free-speech rights" argument increasingly thin on platforms aggreggating hundreds of millions or billions of eyes and ears, and increasingly inextricably bound to social, commercial, and governmental institutions and activities. At the same time, the wild west alternative has also proved untenable, with strong civil-rights groups including EFF and ACLU increasingly acknowledging and accommodating this reality. There's a middle way.
valuearb 7y ago
That’s exactly the spirit of the constitution. Back then few people could afford a printing press, so your ability to reach the masses could easily be frustrated by the refusal of private entities that did. But the founding fathers never thought it necessary to regulate printing presses to ensure the access of minority opinions. The First Amendment was explicitly written to prevent that kind of social intervention. I think they’d tell you, set up your own server and your own service, it’s not hard.