6 ms·

This is how the internet is supposed to work. Encounters damage, routes around it. Censorship is damage, and people are routing around it. As someone who never

This is how the internet is supposed to work. Encounters damage, routes around it. Censorship is damage, and people are routing around it. As someone who never engaged with FB/Twitter from the beginning because I thought they were terrible ideas (all the rules, risks, and challenges of elite-level competition with none of the benefits), I was very glad to read this because this kind of divergence is precisely what creates growth. The platforms were becoming a ceiling on growth, and their policies have created the critical mass to start new ones. This will be a great time to be in tech.

SmokeyHamster 6y ago
I mostly agree. However, it'll be interesting to see how well new competitors can fair in an industry like social media where the product (i.e. us) is already near monopolized on a few large platforms. Personally, I like Parler's interface, and don't mind that it's kind of a conservative bent, but I've heard from other conservatives that the interface isn't as good as Twitters. And it's smaller audience is already keeping some big-names away from it, even people who would theoretically really like the platform, like Ben Shapiro or Scott Adams. They've both created accounts there, but have both signaled that it's just too small of a platform and is a waste of their time to post there, so they stick with Twitter.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Those personalities you mention (Shapiro, Adams, etc) are artifacts of the prior platforms. It's meaningless if not better that they do not move. What makes this exciting is new characters and economics will emerge. Former British PM Tony Blair once related an anecdote about why he decided to run for the leadership, when Labour had just lost hard in an election and he heard their campaign lead rant, "I can't believe it, the people voted against us...what's wrong with them?" And that is how he saw his opportunity. Between this cultural shift, tons of idle cash sitting on balance sheet sidelines looking for productive assets and growth, and a winter of semi-lockdowns ahead of us with nothing to do but code, next summer is going to be the most epic year for startups since '96-97. That is, assuming civilization isn't wiped out, but I'm pretty well hedged.
calinet6 6y ago
I see it as the opposite: this may be how a technical network is supposed to work, but it's not how a society is supposed to work. The internet has created the ability for any given subculture to discover instant validation and reinforce their beliefs into a tribe, which further solidifies and extremifies those beliefs. It's a psychological power almost equivalent to a nuclear reaction: beliefs and ideas that might have naturally died out pre-internet are instead amplified and spread, and dug deeper into peoples' minds. This is a critical time to be in tech, but not for the growth: for the need to design solutions to that problem. Censorship is a primitive attempt at stopping this psychological nuclear reaction; people are finding ways around it. We need a bigger, better solution to the reaction, lest society destroy itself through unfettered tribalism.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Censoring and filtering ideas will just lead to evasion of the filters. It will never work, we need to embrace free speech and let people believe as they choose.
- TravHatesMe 6y ago
  Well said! Makes me think about the scope of tribalism before the internet. Without a doubt there was some, perhaps to a lesser degree though? I think certain views/opinions were more privately kept, perhaps shared with family members and close friends but very rarely shared with people outside their inner circle -- everything you said had your name attached to it and thus carried risks. I suppose you could write newspaper columns under a pseudonym, maybe mask your voice/face on radio or TV, but that was likely the most anonymous you could be. The internet is more or less anonymous by default. Should users be allowed to hide behind anonymity? I have to say yes because otherwise it just feels like 1984. I think that it's possible to minimize tribalism by enabling civil discussion that shares many perspectives, with all hostility removed (and perhaps minimal emotions), and most importantly, let the audience form their own opinions. I really think that technology can solve this. Like all ideas, success is entirely dependent on implementation.
  - calinet6 6y ago
Spooky23 6y ago
No, it’s awful and will ultimately justify creating the same government power over cyberspace that it exerts over airwaves. It a painful example of how the miracle of technology doesn’t mean tech companies can govern. It’s hard stuff, on the one hand, if 1999 era tech was all we had, I’d likely be sick or dead as remote work wouldn’t have been possible for me. On the other, with 1999 era tech, we wouldn’t have a reality show host president fueling a pandemic to get more attention in media. Right wing lunatics (and other fringe types) weren’t powerful in 1990 because they couldn’t broadcast their filth. They got traction because the rules were loosened for radio and angry white man radio became a thing. You have the state of shitshow today because any lunatic can broadcast anything and gather a following.
sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
OOC are you a Parler user/have you visited the site? If this is a victory for free speech, it's certainly a Pyrrhic one. Twitter and facebook comments seem like the pinnacle of civil discourse next to the stuff I found on Parler just by creating an account and following all the recommended content in the onboarding process.

SmokeyHamster 6y ago

I mostly agree. However, it'll be interesting to see how well new competitors can fair in an industry like social media where the product (i.e. us) is already near monopolized on a few large platforms. Personally, I like Parler's interface, and don't mind that it's kind of a conservative bent, but I've heard from other conservatives that the interface isn't as good as Twitters. And it's smaller audience is already keeping some big-names away from it, even people who would theoretically really like the platform, like Ben Shapiro or Scott Adams. They've both created accounts there, but have both signaled that it's just too small of a platform and is a waste of their time to post there, so they stick with Twitter.

motohagiography 6y ago
Those personalities you mention (Shapiro, Adams, etc) are artifacts of the prior platforms. It's meaningless if not better that they do not move. What makes this exciting is new characters and economics will emerge. Former British PM Tony Blair once related an anecdote about why he decided to run for the leadership, when Labour had just lost hard in an election and he heard their campaign lead rant, "I can't believe it, the people voted against us...what's wrong with them?" And that is how he saw his opportunity. Between this cultural shift, tons of idle cash sitting on balance sheet sidelines looking for productive assets and growth, and a winter of semi-lockdowns ahead of us with nothing to do but code, next summer is going to be the most epic year for startups since '96-97. That is, assuming civilization isn't wiped out, but I'm pretty well hedged.

calinet6 6y ago

I see it as the opposite: this may be how a technical network is supposed to work, but it's not how a society is supposed to work. The internet has created the ability for any given subculture to discover instant validation and reinforce their beliefs into a tribe, which further solidifies and extremifies those beliefs. It's a psychological power almost equivalent to a nuclear reaction: beliefs and ideas that might have naturally died out pre-internet are instead amplified and spread, and dug deeper into peoples' minds. This is a critical time to be in tech, but not for the growth: for the need to design solutions to that problem. Censorship is a primitive attempt at stopping this psychological nuclear reaction; people are finding ways around it. We need a bigger, better solution to the reaction, lest society destroy itself through unfettered tribalism.

dkdk8283 6y ago
Censoring and filtering ideas will just lead to evasion of the filters. It will never work, we need to embrace free speech and let people believe as they choose.
TravHatesMe 6y ago
Well said! Makes me think about the scope of tribalism before the internet. Without a doubt there was some, perhaps to a lesser degree though? I think certain views/opinions were more privately kept, perhaps shared with family members and close friends but very rarely shared with people outside their inner circle -- everything you said had your name attached to it and thus carried risks. I suppose you could write newspaper columns under a pseudonym, maybe mask your voice/face on radio or TV, but that was likely the most anonymous you could be. The internet is more or less anonymous by default. Should users be allowed to hide behind anonymity? I have to say yes because otherwise it just feels like 1984. I think that it's possible to minimize tribalism by enabling civil discussion that shares many perspectives, with all hostility removed (and perhaps minimal emotions), and most importantly, let the audience form their own opinions. I really think that technology can solve this. Like all ideas, success is entirely dependent on implementation.
- calinet6 6y ago

Spooky23 6y ago

No, it’s awful and will ultimately justify creating the same government power over cyberspace that it exerts over airwaves. It a painful example of how the miracle of technology doesn’t mean tech companies can govern. It’s hard stuff, on the one hand, if 1999 era tech was all we had, I’d likely be sick or dead as remote work wouldn’t have been possible for me. On the other, with 1999 era tech, we wouldn’t have a reality show host president fueling a pandemic to get more attention in media. Right wing lunatics (and other fringe types) weren’t powerful in 1990 because they couldn’t broadcast their filth. They got traction because the rules were loosened for radio and angry white man radio became a thing. You have the state of shitshow today because any lunatic can broadcast anything and gather a following.

sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago

OOC are you a Parler user/have you visited the site? If this is a victory for free speech, it's certainly a Pyrrhic one. Twitter and facebook comments seem like the pinnacle of civil discourse next to the stuff I found on Parler just by creating an account and following all the recommended content in the onboarding process.