4 ms·

Sounds like there's some really interesting ideas here. > Two people with two different mod lists for the same community can see drastically different communit

Sounds like there's some really interesting ideas here. > Two people with two different mod lists for the same community can see drastically different communities Reminds me of the 'sharding' idea in World of Warcraft. I'm really curious if you'll end up with issues of 'social dissonance' where your perception of a community differs drastically from someone else's because you literally see different content, and if that affects how people engage with the community. Also, it seems like with user sovereignty and decentralization, that there will be various objectionable or even vile communities is inevitable, right? Is there a plan for how to deal with that, should Aether ever become popular enough to get more mainstream news attention? I imagine responding to tech blogs with, "yes, there are white supremacist sub-communities, but you don't have to see them if you don't want to" won't come across as a very satisfying answer from their perspective.

buzzkillington 6y ago
>Also, it seems like with user sovereignty and decentralization, that there will be various objectionable or even vile communities is inevitable, right? [...] I imagine responding to tech blogs with, "yes, there are white supremacist sub-communities, but you don't have to see them if you don't want to" won't come across as a very satisfying answer from their perspective. We comply with the letter of the law for the jurisdiction we fall under. Trying to explain anything to a mob is pointless. We don't need to add ever more censors to what we see. The US government is bad enough, some hipster in NY or SF writing for a glorified wordpress blog should be as relevant as the mullah for Iran's most backward village.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Describing journalists concerned about bigoted communities present on your platform as "a mob" is certainly a hot take.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Allow me to add one of my own: Journalists' jobs aren't to share their "concerns", it's to report the facts. So much of the media's pathology is a result of the problem that news doesn't even try to be impartial anymore. If you want to "share your concerns", the place to do that is an op-ed, or a blog post, or twitter, or something. But it isn't journalism anymore.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      News never was impartial. Just by selecting what to report and the order in which you report things you influence the reception of the world. I'd argue that it's impossible to have objective news.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        That's not what I'm talking about here. We've gone beyond mere story selection to actual agenda-pushing. I.e punditry, not journalism.
  - buzzkillington 6y ago
    Not really. The yellow press has been creating violent controversies ever since the printing press was invented. That they have moved on from urging the burning of heretics and infidels alive to making sure racists and bigots can't afford food and shelter is progress of a sort, but not one I would have chosen. Still I might be speaking too soon. I wouldn't put it past them to reinvent the 30 Years War over which race is more virtuous for more clicks.
  - missosoup 6y ago
    The word 'bigoted' is getting thrown around all over the place in this post and most commenters, including this one, seem to have never actually looked it up in the dictionary. Bigoted does not mean right-wing, objectionable, or things one disagrees with. Bigoted means unwilling to change one's opinion. Which certainly applies to the hard left wing end of the spectrum just as much as it does to hard right. Bigoted: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices. If anything, so-called journalists using a platform to express 'concern' over things they disagree with is a better fit for the term. The job of a journalist is to report, not to preach their own brand of politics or dislikes or concerns.
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      > The word 'bigoted' is getting thrown around all over the place in this post and most commenters, including this one, seem to have never actually looked it up in the dictionary. On the contrary: """One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.""" It applies very well to people intolerant of other groups, ethnicity or race.
      - missosoup 6y ago
        It's not restricted to ethnicity, groups or race. Bigotry is merely the refusal to entertain different beliefs; whatever their groupby factor may be. Cherry-picking parts of the definition to meet one's idea of what it 'should' be, is the actual meaning of bigotry. Please refer to the Oxford dictionary definition if you're still confused.
        eeZah7Ux 6y ago
        Everybody can see what little game you are playing.
      - secondcoming 6y ago
        Well, I guess there's a little bit of a bigot in everyone! It may sound like an insult but really isn't.
concordDance 6y ago
> I imagine responding to tech blogs with, "yes, there are white supremacist sub-communities, but you don't have to see them if you don't want to" won't come across as a very satisfying answer from their perspective. It's always irked me that most people seem to think that people with different politics to them shouldn't be allowed to communicate.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  1. Referring to them as just "different politics" covers up the hateful, violent ideologies we're talking about. 2. Wanting them to be banned from a particular platform isn't a general ban on communication. Private communities are under no obligation to tolerate the intolerant.
  - ccatty 6y ago
    The domain-name removals, the mastercard and visa bans, and the app bans are the actions of private companies in name only. What this is, despite pretending otherwise, is an exercise of a form of state power. When exercised against a nation, we recognize it as a sanction. But when exercised against an individual, it is something different. In reality, there is no practical difference between this and state censorship in China. Personally, I don't object to this kind of power in principle, I just think that it is used in the wrong direction in the United States. Rather than being used to target and remove individuals who promote instability, it has been used to target and remove individuals who promote stability. Much of the United States now believes property destruction is acceptable if it achieves honorable ends.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      > The domain-name removals, the mastercard and visa bans, and the app bans are the actions of private companies in name only. No, they're completely the actions of private companies. It turns out, private companies exist in a mostly-shared culture and often have similar ideas about how to behave. Currently -- thank god -- deplatforming blatant bigots is generally agreed upon as A Good Thing. No conspiracy here, just good sense. > Rather than being used to target and remove individuals who promote instability, it has been used to target and remove individuals who promote stability. Seriously? White supremacists are now "individuals who promote stability"? > Much of the United States now believes property destruction is acceptable if it achieves honorable ends. I mean, yeah, the US has always believed that. The country had basically two starting points, after all: stealing the natives' land, and then later on destroying property as part of a protest.

buzzkillington 6y ago

>Also, it seems like with user sovereignty and decentralization, that there will be various objectionable or even vile communities is inevitable, right? [...] I imagine responding to tech blogs with, "yes, there are white supremacist sub-communities, but you don't have to see them if you don't want to" won't come across as a very satisfying answer from their perspective. We comply with the letter of the law for the jurisdiction we fall under. Trying to explain anything to a mob is pointless. We don't need to add ever more censors to what we see. The US government is bad enough, some hipster in NY or SF writing for a glorified wordpress blog should be as relevant as the mullah for Iran's most backward village.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
Describing journalists concerned about bigoted communities present on your platform as "a mob" is certainly a hot take.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Allow me to add one of my own: Journalists' jobs aren't to share their "concerns", it's to report the facts. So much of the media's pathology is a result of the problem that news doesn't even try to be impartial anymore. If you want to "share your concerns", the place to do that is an op-ed, or a blog post, or twitter, or something. But it isn't journalism anymore.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    News never was impartial. Just by selecting what to report and the order in which you report things you influence the reception of the world. I'd argue that it's impossible to have objective news.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      That's not what I'm talking about here. We've gone beyond mere story selection to actual agenda-pushing. I.e punditry, not journalism.
- buzzkillington 6y ago
  Not really. The yellow press has been creating violent controversies ever since the printing press was invented. That they have moved on from urging the burning of heretics and infidels alive to making sure racists and bigots can't afford food and shelter is progress of a sort, but not one I would have chosen. Still I might be speaking too soon. I wouldn't put it past them to reinvent the 30 Years War over which race is more virtuous for more clicks.
- missosoup 6y ago
  The word 'bigoted' is getting thrown around all over the place in this post and most commenters, including this one, seem to have never actually looked it up in the dictionary. Bigoted does not mean right-wing, objectionable, or things one disagrees with. Bigoted means unwilling to change one's opinion. Which certainly applies to the hard left wing end of the spectrum just as much as it does to hard right. Bigoted: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices. If anything, so-called journalists using a platform to express 'concern' over things they disagree with is a better fit for the term. The job of a journalist is to report, not to preach their own brand of politics or dislikes or concerns.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > The word 'bigoted' is getting thrown around all over the place in this post and most commenters, including this one, seem to have never actually looked it up in the dictionary. On the contrary: """One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.""" It applies very well to people intolerant of other groups, ethnicity or race.
    - missosoup 6y ago
      It's not restricted to ethnicity, groups or race. Bigotry is merely the refusal to entertain different beliefs; whatever their groupby factor may be. Cherry-picking parts of the definition to meet one's idea of what it 'should' be, is the actual meaning of bigotry. Please refer to the Oxford dictionary definition if you're still confused.
      - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
        Everybody can see what little game you are playing.
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      Well, I guess there's a little bit of a bigot in everyone! It may sound like an insult but really isn't.

concordDance 6y ago

> I imagine responding to tech blogs with, "yes, there are white supremacist sub-communities, but you don't have to see them if you don't want to" won't come across as a very satisfying answer from their perspective. It's always irked me that most people seem to think that people with different politics to them shouldn't be allowed to communicate.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
1. Referring to them as just "different politics" covers up the hateful, violent ideologies we're talking about. 2. Wanting them to be banned from a particular platform isn't a general ban on communication. Private communities are under no obligation to tolerate the intolerant.
- ccatty 6y ago
  The domain-name removals, the mastercard and visa bans, and the app bans are the actions of private companies in name only. What this is, despite pretending otherwise, is an exercise of a form of state power. When exercised against a nation, we recognize it as a sanction. But when exercised against an individual, it is something different. In reality, there is no practical difference between this and state censorship in China. Personally, I don't object to this kind of power in principle, I just think that it is used in the wrong direction in the United States. Rather than being used to target and remove individuals who promote instability, it has been used to target and remove individuals who promote stability. Much of the United States now believes property destruction is acceptable if it achieves honorable ends.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > The domain-name removals, the mastercard and visa bans, and the app bans are the actions of private companies in name only. No, they're completely the actions of private companies. It turns out, private companies exist in a mostly-shared culture and often have similar ideas about how to behave. Currently -- thank god -- deplatforming blatant bigots is generally agreed upon as A Good Thing. No conspiracy here, just good sense. > Rather than being used to target and remove individuals who promote instability, it has been used to target and remove individuals who promote stability. Seriously? White supremacists are now "individuals who promote stability"? > Much of the United States now believes property destruction is acceptable if it achieves honorable ends. I mean, yeah, the US has always believed that. The country had basically two starting points, after all: stealing the natives' land, and then later on destroying property as part of a protest.