4 ms·

I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation

• 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.