4 ms·

Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter. I understand where you're coming from and I probably should have said this in my previous comment; given the widespread usage of FB and Twitter, it is somewhat concerning that so many people are at the mercy of those rapacious scumbags. My primary concern is the market and network effect power of these organizations. If you limit those, you limit the ability of these corporations to exert so much influence on online discourse. Rather than removing their free speech (and section 230 liability protections) rights, requiring and enabling competition would be a better solution. I wrote the following on another site (a section 230 discussion) a few days ago and think it apropos here. Your thoughts and criticism would be welcome: "Personally, I'd rather see the following: 1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; 2. Require ISPs to provide a minimum of half the download bandwidth in upload bandwidth (e.g., if you have 100Mb/sec down, you get at least 50Mb/sec up); 3. Modify the licenses social media platforms require for posted content (currently, a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use, modify and display for any reason) to a more user-centric one (e.g., a limited, revocable license which retains copyright and ownership of content for the creator, which can only be used for specific, opt-in purposes and must regularly be renewed); 4. Require platforms to obtain opt-in agreement to all forms of tracking, whether on or off the platform. Doing the above would reduce the powerful network effects of the big platforms, provide a wider range of interoperable choices for social media connections and platforms including self-hosting. Throw in federation services and you can create seamless user networks across platforms. This would promote competition, stronger control for users over their data and information, the ability to congregate/associate as you wish, and allow anyone to create the environment that they want, curated (or not) as they choose. And it would force the big platforms to compete on features, privacy and quality experience to retain their user base. That can be done while still maintaining the important section 230 protections that promote free speech, regardless of the size of the platforms. Most importantly, it retains the ability for people to seek damages for libel/defamation without heavy-handed regulation and/or some person/corporation/entity deciding how much [filter bubble] is too much/too little."
- molbioguy 6y ago
  >1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a technical perspective? And if anyone could cross-post content on any platform, wouldn't the platforms argue that it violates their right to control content on their platforms? And what happens if you get a concerted effort across platforms to block individuals based on political/moral stances? Within 2 days (I think) Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Redit and others have suspended and/or blocked content from Trump and various Trump supporters. The ex-first lady is asking "big-tech" to take additional actions, whatever that means.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a technical perspective? These platforms already have APIs to share content between servers within their networks. Just provide an interface for external servers. >And if anyone could cross-post content on any platform, wouldn't the platforms argue that it violates their right to control content on their platforms? That's what federation is for. As long as I can authenticate to my account, what difference does it make whether a post is interactively entered or sent via an API? Those platforms still have their own TOS, so they can decide how or if they want to moderate any individual post. Something along the lines of Diaspora[0] or ActivityPub[1] federation. >And what happens if you get a concerted effort across platforms to block individuals based on political/moral stances? Within 2 days (I think) Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Redit and others have suspended and/or blocked content from Trump and various Trump supporters. The ex-first lady is asking "big-tech" to take additional actions, whatever that means. That's the beauty of a decentralized environment. I can host my own federated server or connect to any other federated server. Presumably, someone will be willing to host your content. And if not[2], you can do it yourself. The best part is you can control where your data is shared and who gets to see it. If you don't want the big boys to host your stuff, you can use federation to share with others on those platforms. All of which can democratize the environment and allow you to be in control of your data, not the rapacious scumbags that run FB or Twitter. [0] https://diaspora.github.io/diaspora_federation/ https://diaspora.github.io/diaspora_federation/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub#Federated_(server-to-server)_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub#Federated_(server-... [2] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

>Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter. I understand where you're coming from and I probably should have said this in my previous comment; given the widespread usage of FB and Twitter, it is somewhat concerning that so many people are at the mercy of those rapacious scumbags. My primary concern is the market and network effect power of these organizations. If you limit those, you limit the ability of these corporations to exert so much influence on online discourse. Rather than removing their free speech (and section 230 liability protections) rights, requiring and enabling competition would be a better solution. I wrote the following on another site (a section 230 discussion) a few days ago and think it apropos here. Your thoughts and criticism would be welcome: "Personally, I'd rather see the following: 1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; 2. Require ISPs to provide a minimum of half the download bandwidth in upload bandwidth (e.g., if you have 100Mb/sec down, you get at least 50Mb/sec up); 3. Modify the licenses social media platforms require for posted content (currently, a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use, modify and display for any reason) to a more user-centric one (e.g., a limited, revocable license which retains copyright and ownership of content for the creator, which can only be used for specific, opt-in purposes and must regularly be renewed); 4. Require platforms to obtain opt-in agreement to all forms of tracking, whether on or off the platform. Doing the above would reduce the powerful network effects of the big platforms, provide a wider range of interoperable choices for social media connections and platforms including self-hosting. Throw in federation services and you can create seamless user networks across platforms. This would promote competition, stronger control for users over their data and information, the ability to congregate/associate as you wish, and allow anyone to create the environment that they want, curated (or not) as they choose. And it would force the big platforms to compete on features, privacy and quality experience to retain their user base. That can be done while still maintaining the important section 230 protections that promote free speech, regardless of the size of the platforms. Most importantly, it retains the ability for people to seek damages for libel/defamation without heavy-handed regulation and/or some person/corporation/entity deciding how much [filter bubble] is too much/too little."

molbioguy 6y ago
>1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a technical perspective? And if anyone could cross-post content on any platform, wouldn't the platforms argue that it violates their right to control content on their platforms? And what happens if you get a concerted effort across platforms to block individuals based on political/moral stances? Within 2 days (I think) Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Redit and others have suspended and/or blocked content from Trump and various Trump supporters. The ex-first lady is asking "big-tech" to take additional actions, whatever that means.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a technical perspective? These platforms already have APIs to share content between servers within their networks. Just provide an interface for external servers. >And if anyone could cross-post content on any platform, wouldn't the platforms argue that it violates their right to control content on their platforms? That's what federation is for. As long as I can authenticate to my account, what difference does it make whether a post is interactively entered or sent via an API? Those platforms still have their own TOS, so they can decide how or if they want to moderate any individual post. Something along the lines of Diaspora[0] or ActivityPub[1] federation. >And what happens if you get a concerted effort across platforms to block individuals based on political/moral stances? Within 2 days (I think) Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Redit and others have suspended and/or blocked content from Trump and various Trump supporters. The ex-first lady is asking "big-tech" to take additional actions, whatever that means. That's the beauty of a decentralized environment. I can host my own federated server or connect to any other federated server. Presumably, someone will be willing to host your content. And if not[2], you can do it yourself. The best part is you can control where your data is shared and who gets to see it. If you don't want the big boys to host your stuff, you can use federation to share with others on those platforms. All of which can democratize the environment and allow you to be in control of your data, not the rapacious scumbags that run FB or Twitter. [0] https://diaspora.github.io/diaspora_federation/ https://diaspora.github.io/diaspora_federation/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub#Federated_(server-to-server)_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub#Federated_(server-... [2] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/