3 ms·

Decentralization and deinstitutionalization is dangerous to Democracy. Uncheck conspiracy theories, QAnon bullshit, Parler boys, 4chan anonymity are all dangero

Decentralization and deinstitutionalization is dangerous to Democracy. Uncheck conspiracy theories, QAnon bullshit, Parler boys, 4chan anonymity are all dangerous to public, intellectual discourse. Convince me. Your body has cancer, swift removal of it before it “decentralizes” is the only option. I would be in favor of actual decentralization: Being able to broadcast 50km radius on the internet and improving communities, thriving local newspapers and localization of concerns. If you want to broadcast to state level, you must have education, journalism rigor, and standup to scrutiny, have to explain inconsistencies or your role is revoked. “Decentralization”, the widely used term is a congregation of ill which cannot survive the scrutiny of public IMO. Before you go touting for decentralization, ask yourself when was the last time you checked city news and county affairs? What happens at the National level has little effect on you locally. What Ted Cruz and AOC exchanged on Twitter has no bearing to your county. Internet gave everybody a centralized platform in the first place. Some good aspects (Wikipedia) and some horrifying consequences.

non-cotton 6y ago
I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation. What does it mean to "remove the cancer before it decentralizes" in this context?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Twitter, FB, Google all benefited from QAnon and bunch of violence that thrives on it. Election misinformation should have been removed. We have proper channels for this - ie courts.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - non-cotton 6y ago
    Sure, but that wouldn't have prevented the "cancer" from moving to decentralized networks. If anything it'd probably accelerate the process. I think the important point is that most operators of nodes on a federated network are not in a position to benefit from this kind of garbage content, and have every reason (and the tools they need) to keep it away from their portion of the network.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      The Internet used to be decentralized and only after communication centralized via social media companies did the likes of QAnon become particularly problematic. There was always a fringe, but we had the norms and tools to keep it marginalized. Something has changed and arguments that we can fix the problem by doubling down on changing our norms/ideals (e.g., free speech, equality, tolerance, etc) don’t seem likely at all to pan out. We made a bad turn, but rather than continue to jeopardize our social fabric for pride or dunk costs, we should figure out how we can get back on course. Of course, that requires good faith, honesty, integrity, courage, etc., which are in short supply these days.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's a great idea to just let "the angry mob" decide either.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
It's a very unpopular sentiment here on HN, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I have a slight different idea that is also very unpopular. I don't think you should be able to "broadcast" anonymously. When you say things that are illegal, like death threats and hate speech, you should be held responsible. I think privacy is important, and I think you should be able to consume content anonymously, but I don't think you should be able to "post" anonymously.
- freebuju 6y ago
  Thousands of people everyday post "anonymously" via pseudo accounts/names, more so on the heavily surveiled big social sites. Does this mean that the contents of their posts are unwanted? No. The algorithms are designed to give prominence to the most relevant posts, whether you as an individual agree with them or not. It is up to how many likes/shares these posts get. I think we should stop running away from the fact that we are human. And we all have some quirky deep-rooted tendencies & desires that may not be socially viewed as moral. Most of the times, these pseudo accounts provide amplification to that whispering inner voice harboring inside. Am certain we've all had experience with a peculiar post and go - "If it weren't for my boss following me back on my feeds I would have shared controversial view X, but hey am glad someone else said it." Then proceed to share the screenshot of said view in a more private setting such as group channels/chats etc.
eitland 6y ago
I have told people they must remember whatever they put in place will be available to the next government/president/administration. Allow politicians to censor? Well it will be available for for both Joe Biden as well as the next Republican president. This is why one needs to be careful.
- throwaway_6142 6y ago
  From the looks of it, their plan seem to be to institute enough political repression that they won't have to worry about any next government/president/administration.
__MatrixMan__ 6y ago
I think your cancer metaphor is backwards. The way that a single genome is processed by myriad cells throughout the body is a miracle of decentralization. Each node is free to deviate and improvise and yet for the most part they work together for the greater good of the overall network. Cancer is what happens when a small group of cells deviates from the protocol and starts consuming resources to the exclusion of their neighbor. What is a tumor if not a centralized drive towards growth at any cost? Sounds like many modern tech companies to me. You also seem to think that decentralization would lead to less emphasis on local happenings. Why? If we moved away from a handful of services for the whole planet, wouldn't the logical next phase be a service or two per city? A decentralized web means knowing the guy who runs the server you're connecting to. A decentralizalized internet means configuring your router to peer with routers in the houses that you can see from your house. Relocalization seems like an obvious consequence of decentralizalization to me.
throwaway_6142 6y ago
> If you want to broadcast to state level, you must have education, journalism rigor, and standup to scrutiny, have to explain inconsistencies or your role is revoked. And make no mistake, what they mean in reality by the above is always the same, namely that "free speech" will mean you are freely allowed to repeat the talking points of the Party.

non-cotton 6y ago

I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation. What does it mean to "remove the cancer before it decentralizes" in this context?

systemvoltage 6y ago
Twitter, FB, Google all benefited from QAnon and bunch of violence that thrives on it. Election misinformation should have been removed. We have proper channels for this - ie courts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- non-cotton 6y ago
  Sure, but that wouldn't have prevented the "cancer" from moving to decentralized networks. If anything it'd probably accelerate the process. I think the important point is that most operators of nodes on a federated network are not in a position to benefit from this kind of garbage content, and have every reason (and the tools they need) to keep it away from their portion of the network.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    The Internet used to be decentralized and only after communication centralized via social media companies did the likes of QAnon become particularly problematic. There was always a fringe, but we had the norms and tools to keep it marginalized. Something has changed and arguments that we can fix the problem by doubling down on changing our norms/ideals (e.g., free speech, equality, tolerance, etc) don’t seem likely at all to pan out. We made a bad turn, but rather than continue to jeopardize our social fabric for pride or dunk costs, we should figure out how we can get back on course. Of course, that requires good faith, honesty, integrity, courage, etc., which are in short supply these days.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
I'm not sure it's a great idea to just let "the angry mob" decide either.

jay_kyburz 6y ago

It's a very unpopular sentiment here on HN, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I have a slight different idea that is also very unpopular. I don't think you should be able to "broadcast" anonymously. When you say things that are illegal, like death threats and hate speech, you should be held responsible. I think privacy is important, and I think you should be able to consume content anonymously, but I don't think you should be able to "post" anonymously.

freebuju 6y ago
Thousands of people everyday post "anonymously" via pseudo accounts/names, more so on the heavily surveiled big social sites. Does this mean that the contents of their posts are unwanted? No. The algorithms are designed to give prominence to the most relevant posts, whether you as an individual agree with them or not. It is up to how many likes/shares these posts get. I think we should stop running away from the fact that we are human. And we all have some quirky deep-rooted tendencies & desires that may not be socially viewed as moral. Most of the times, these pseudo accounts provide amplification to that whispering inner voice harboring inside. Am certain we've all had experience with a peculiar post and go - "If it weren't for my boss following me back on my feeds I would have shared controversial view X, but hey am glad someone else said it." Then proceed to share the screenshot of said view in a more private setting such as group channels/chats etc.

eitland 6y ago

I have told people they must remember whatever they put in place will be available to the next government/president/administration. Allow politicians to censor? Well it will be available for for both Joe Biden as well as the next Republican president. This is why one needs to be careful.

throwaway_6142 6y ago
From the looks of it, their plan seem to be to institute enough political repression that they won't have to worry about any next government/president/administration.

__MatrixMan__ 6y ago

I think your cancer metaphor is backwards. The way that a single genome is processed by myriad cells throughout the body is a miracle of decentralization. Each node is free to deviate and improvise and yet for the most part they work together for the greater good of the overall network. Cancer is what happens when a small group of cells deviates from the protocol and starts consuming resources to the exclusion of their neighbor. What is a tumor if not a centralized drive towards growth at any cost? Sounds like many modern tech companies to me. You also seem to think that decentralization would lead to less emphasis on local happenings. Why? If we moved away from a handful of services for the whole planet, wouldn't the logical next phase be a service or two per city? A decentralized web means knowing the guy who runs the server you're connecting to. A decentralizalized internet means configuring your router to peer with routers in the houses that you can see from your house. Relocalization seems like an obvious consequence of decentralizalization to me.

throwaway_6142 6y ago

> If you want to broadcast to state level, you must have education, journalism rigor, and standup to scrutiny, have to explain inconsistencies or your role is revoked. And make no mistake, what they mean in reality by the above is always the same, namely that "free speech" will mean you are freely allowed to repeat the talking points of the Party.