4 ms·

> If HN is overrepresented by vanguards of decentralization and free speech, why are a lot of us here on HN instead of running USENET nodes and posting to a new

by zrm 6y ago

> If HN is overrepresented by vanguards of decentralization and free speech, why are a lot of us here on HN instead of running USENET nodes and posting to a newsgroup such as "comp.programming.hackernews" to avoid being moderated by dang? Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors. Also notice that you're using a web page delivered via HTTP over TCP/IP over Ethernet, resolved via DNS, secured via TLS etc. These are all standard protocols. But Facebook isn't one and that's at the root of the problem. > If most of HN knows how to set up git and stand up a web server, why do most of use Github instead of running Gitlab on a home pc/laptop/RaspberryPi or rent a Digital Ocean vps? The network effect. > It's because "free & open protocols" weren't really the issue! It's because "free & open protocols" are an important thing but not the only thing, and their importance relative to other things was until recently not under the spotlight.

virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
> Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors I mean, or that the angry mobs don't like violent insurrections being encouraged and planned openly on these platforms. Is that what you mean by "damage their political opponents?" Phrases like that make it sound like the "opponents" are some innocent little scared children who did nothing wrong. If demanding that calls to violence are stopped is political for you, then ok, sure. As I've said and will keep saying: those most vocal about protecting the 'freedom' of domestic terrorists to terrorize are the ones most certain they'll never suffer from that terror.
- zrm 6y ago
  Forcing your way into the capitol and taking over a police station are both illegal and should not be done. They both meet the formal definition of "violent insurrection" and they both happened over the last year. The media response has been asymmetrical. Also, people are being excluded who have never called for violence. What "violent insurrection" was Discord suppressing by /r/WallStreetBets?
majormajor 6y ago
> Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors. This is not a statement many people who have been angry recently would agree with. Trump would've gotten himself banned from any of the forums I hung out in from 2000 to now. Not for being conservative, for being an asshole. The "only remove illegal content" crowd has a problem with that. I don't.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >This is not a statement many people who have been angry recently would agree with. Well, what "angry people would agree with" is a pretty strange basis for an argument, anyway... >Trump would've gotten himself banned from any of the forums I hung out in from 2000 to now. Not for being conservative, for being an asshole. And that would be neither here nor there, cause your forums are not so massive as to shape public opinion and influence elections and news. In smaller, disperse and diverse, discussion platforms, you would be entitled to think that he should be banned for "being an asshole" and even ban him from your forums, while others would be entitled to ban others that say the same or worse things from the opposite side of the political spectrum. When one side, in a major public-opinion-influencing service can ban a whole side of the political spectrum though, and even the sitting president, that's a problem. It's actually analogous to election influencing - same as if 9 out of 10 channels in TV only carried the views from one party and not the other(s).
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > It's actually analogous to election influencing - same as if 9 out of 10 channels in TV only carried the views from one party and not the other(s). Thanks to the Reagan administration, that's fine, yes? It would violate Twitter's free speech rights to force them to do otherwise? This is an ancient argument and Twitter neither "banned a whole side of the political spectrum" (the asshole Trumpian wing is hardly all of conservatism) nor did anything new to US history. The reason Trump is pushing for the "public square" aspect is because in a decentralized world, his crowd would still be pushed to the fringes because it's expressing fringe (but loud) views. 90 out of 100 forums would have issues with him. So instead, he wants to have access on his terms.

by zrm 6y ago

virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago

> Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors I mean, or that the angry mobs don't like violent insurrections being encouraged and planned openly on these platforms. Is that what you mean by "damage their political opponents?" Phrases like that make it sound like the "opponents" are some innocent little scared children who did nothing wrong. If demanding that calls to violence are stopped is political for you, then ok, sure. As I've said and will keep saying: those most vocal about protecting the 'freedom' of domestic terrorists to terrorize are the ones most certain they'll never suffer from that terror.

zrm 6y ago
Forcing your way into the capitol and taking over a police station are both illegal and should not be done. They both meet the formal definition of "violent insurrection" and they both happened over the last year. The media response has been asymmetrical. Also, people are being excluded who have never called for violence. What "violent insurrection" was Discord suppressing by /r/WallStreetBets?

majormajor 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago
>This is not a statement many people who have been angry recently would agree with. Well, what "angry people would agree with" is a pretty strange basis for an argument, anyway... >Trump would've gotten himself banned from any of the forums I hung out in from 2000 to now. Not for being conservative, for being an asshole. And that would be neither here nor there, cause your forums are not so massive as to shape public opinion and influence elections and news. In smaller, disperse and diverse, discussion platforms, you would be entitled to think that he should be banned for "being an asshole" and even ban him from your forums, while others would be entitled to ban others that say the same or worse things from the opposite side of the political spectrum. When one side, in a major public-opinion-influencing service can ban a whole side of the political spectrum though, and even the sitting president, that's a problem. It's actually analogous to election influencing - same as if 9 out of 10 channels in TV only carried the views from one party and not the other(s).
- majormajor 6y ago
  > It's actually analogous to election influencing - same as if 9 out of 10 channels in TV only carried the views from one party and not the other(s). Thanks to the Reagan administration, that's fine, yes? It would violate Twitter's free speech rights to force them to do otherwise? This is an ancient argument and Twitter neither "banned a whole side of the political spectrum" (the asshole Trumpian wing is hardly all of conservatism) nor did anything new to US history. The reason Trump is pushing for the "public square" aspect is because in a decentralized world, his crowd would still be pushed to the fringes because it's expressing fringe (but loud) views. 90 out of 100 forums would have issues with him. So instead, he wants to have access on his terms.