5 ms·

Centralised platforms have utterly failed us though, and have become a way to manage information centrally - someone decides what you can or can't see/read/know

Centralised platforms have utterly failed us though, and have become a way to manage information centrally - someone decides what you can or can't see/read/know about. Decentralised is really the only option for an informed humanity. In the long run, this has to be the answer.

jcelerier 6y ago
> Decentralised is really the only option for an informed humanity. In the long run, this has to be the answer. that implies that "an informed humanity" is something that society wants. I really doubt that.
- feralimal 6y ago
  'Society' is not a real thing, even if people treat it as one. Society does not like or dislike, cannot be informed or uninformed. It is just a collective term. Like government. Its a figment in people's imagination, a term, or an idea - brought to life only because we in aggregate believe it to be true and act as if it is. Personally, I don't consider these ideas to have substance in the way they are presented. The reality, is that 'society' is made up of individuals. Individuals are substantially real. Individuals need to choose for themselves whether they want to be informed or not, according to their conscience. Individuals should also step out of other people's business, ie stop trying to manage 'society'! But that's another story.
richardARPANET 6y ago
I'm not sure it's due to the technical setup of the platforms. But rather that they're all built in SV and/or are controlled by monopolies that are the problem. Myself and a few people are actually working on a video site with freedom of speech values and grandma level usability, feel free to follow along (https://project49476.com/ https://project49476.com/).
mFixman 6y ago
Even in the best case scenario where everyone starts using different instances of Peertube, won't it end like 2012 Reddit full of racist and paedophile instances? You need a minimum amount of moderation to remove the least desirable groups of people from posting content.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > won't it end like 2012 Reddit full of racist and paedophile instances? Not if police intervenes, at least for the pedos there exist established international relations between agencies that works efficiently - there is a reason why you won't see pedo content on the clearnet for long.
- feralimal 6y ago
  This is a difficult question - which is why this line is always provided as a justification for greater authoritarianism. I would ask, where is the crime here? Is it that you saw something terrible, or that something terrible occurred? Should we be focused on the prevention of immoral acts, or the representation of those immoral acts on video? Does your not knowing about certain immoral acts make it better or worse in reality for those suffering by them? If the reality is that there are racists and pedophiles, is better to address the issue openly, or behind closed doors? In my opinion, it is better to enshrine freedom of speech, and to address issues openly. Having things 'managed' privately may mean that it is ok, as long as no one finds out about it. Its definitely a difficult one, but I am not for hiding reality.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Make no mistake, all these alternative platforms do is optimize for a certain type of content and bury/hide some other kind of content. This will always be the case as long as there is an algorithmic feed and search—users will manipulate the system to try to get at the top. Yes, technically it's not illegal to allow those kind of fringe statements but by doing so you implicitly allow that content to rise to the top and it can make your site unsafe for racial minorities and children.
- belorn 6y ago
  What is the evidence that a small group of companies has the superiority wisdom to determine who aught to be allowed to speak to the masses? We elect government democratically, and through that create laws and police. If the internet is full of criminals flaunting laws then the problem is right there in the lack of laws and police, not in the lack of control from a small group of companies.

jcelerier 6y ago

> Decentralised is really the only option for an informed humanity. In the long run, this has to be the answer. that implies that "an informed humanity" is something that society wants. I really doubt that.

feralimal 6y ago
'Society' is not a real thing, even if people treat it as one. Society does not like or dislike, cannot be informed or uninformed. It is just a collective term. Like government. Its a figment in people's imagination, a term, or an idea - brought to life only because we in aggregate believe it to be true and act as if it is. Personally, I don't consider these ideas to have substance in the way they are presented. The reality, is that 'society' is made up of individuals. Individuals are substantially real. Individuals need to choose for themselves whether they want to be informed or not, according to their conscience. Individuals should also step out of other people's business, ie stop trying to manage 'society'! But that's another story.

richardARPANET 6y ago

I'm not sure it's due to the technical setup of the platforms. But rather that they're all built in SV and/or are controlled by monopolies that are the problem. Myself and a few people are actually working on a video site with freedom of speech values and grandma level usability, feel free to follow along (https://project49476.com/ https://project49476.com/).

mFixman 6y ago

Even in the best case scenario where everyone starts using different instances of Peertube, won't it end like 2012 Reddit full of racist and paedophile instances? You need a minimum amount of moderation to remove the least desirable groups of people from posting content.

mschuster91 6y ago
> won't it end like 2012 Reddit full of racist and paedophile instances? Not if police intervenes, at least for the pedos there exist established international relations between agencies that works efficiently - there is a reason why you won't see pedo content on the clearnet for long.
feralimal 6y ago
This is a difficult question - which is why this line is always provided as a justification for greater authoritarianism. I would ask, where is the crime here? Is it that you saw something terrible, or that something terrible occurred? Should we be focused on the prevention of immoral acts, or the representation of those immoral acts on video? Does your not knowing about certain immoral acts make it better or worse in reality for those suffering by them? If the reality is that there are racists and pedophiles, is better to address the issue openly, or behind closed doors? In my opinion, it is better to enshrine freedom of speech, and to address issues openly. Having things 'managed' privately may mean that it is ok, as long as no one finds out about it. Its definitely a difficult one, but I am not for hiding reality.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Make no mistake, all these alternative platforms do is optimize for a certain type of content and bury/hide some other kind of content. This will always be the case as long as there is an algorithmic feed and search—users will manipulate the system to try to get at the top. Yes, technically it's not illegal to allow those kind of fringe statements but by doing so you implicitly allow that content to rise to the top and it can make your site unsafe for racial minorities and children.
belorn 6y ago
What is the evidence that a small group of companies has the superiority wisdom to determine who aught to be allowed to speak to the masses? We elect government democratically, and through that create laws and police. If the internet is full of criminals flaunting laws then the problem is right there in the lack of laws and police, not in the lack of control from a small group of companies.