8 ms·

I guess people want their site to be available when it gets viral?

by qnsi 5y ago

tomc1985 5y ago
By contracting with a private company known for shielding propagandists Totally in line with the OSS ethos.... not
- mst 5y ago
  Being against censorship of even very stupid shit is absolutely in line with the old school hacker ethos. "The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it" was absolutely a thing. [[shakes crutch at the kids on his lawn]]
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    I am generally against censorship but had to revise that stance after I realized we've given a global platform to manipulative idiots truly unworthy of global self-expression. If they want to espouse their crap they can stand on a real soapbox and shout at crowds, but nothing more
    - gameman144 5y ago
      Neat, and who decides whose "crap" is unworthy of freedom of speech? Like, my main objection with censorship isn't "I think that this particular idea is worthy of defending", it's that any mechanism that lets people censor bad opinions could also by used to censor good opinions, and that mechanism is way too powerful and prone to abuse for my comfort.
      - tomc1985 5y ago
        Yeah yeah yeah. I know. And I stopped caring. The that deserve to be muzzled (or worse, but that's not appropriate here...) are the manipulators of all kinds and colors. If the message has any kind of CTA, particularly political, it should be suppressed. Left, right, commerical, political, it doesn't matter. Suppress them all.
        gameman144 5y ago
        Just so I am clear, is "CTA" here "call-to-action". And you're against anything with a call-to-action in it? Like, call me out if this is the wrong acronym, or if I'm misinterpreting, but wouldn't all these be banned then? > Get out and vote! > Get vaccinated! > Sign your kids up for school by August 15th! > Read to your kids! > File your taxes by April 15th! Like, is that actually your position? Not trying to rebut (yet), but that seems like a very very different standard than what exists today if so.
        tomc1985 5y ago
        Pretty much. People are being pulled in a thousand different directions by people with their calls-to-action. Mainly targeting advertisements and political messaging. More prosaic stuff like filing your taxes on time can be conveyed effectively without commanding people to do things. "Taxes are due by April 15th" would work fine, for example.
        fsflover 5y ago
        > People are being pulled in a thousand different directions by people with their calls-to-action. Is that a bad thing? > "Taxes are due by April 15th" would work fine, for example. "Climate action is due now"
        tomc1985 5y ago
        > "Climate action is due now" Couple that with some of the evidence as to why and you have a pretty good message to get out. So very many people don't like being told what to do, and all we do is yell at them with commands and imperatives. Personally it has given me a burning contempt for the kind of folks that promulgate this stuff. If someone wants to compel me into action then they need to convince me on its merits, and those merits alone.
        fsflover 5y ago
        So you are not calling to suppress all political calls. You are calling for reasoning. I agree here.
      - mst 5y ago
        I find reading the way much of society reacted to the original suffragettes very useful for calibration purposes. "Actually, women should be able to vote" would absolutely have been censored entirely had the establishment then had the sort of tools people are advocating to build now.
      - dTal 5y ago
        The fundamental problem is that we need some way of separating good ideas from bad, as a society. Sure, it was a big leap forward when we switched from "whatever the king says" to "let everyone shout as loud as they can and whoever shouts the loudest wins", but the truth we have to face up to is that neither method works particularly well, especially in the age of the internet. So, is there a better system? A way we can bubble "good" ideas up and suppress "bad" ideas, ideally without some corruptible central arbiter? And, will such a system inevitably be viewed as "censorship" by some, purely on the principle that the current shouting-based system favors them more than a meritocratic one would?
  - krapp 5y ago
    >"The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it" was absolutely a thing. It was actually never a thing. The internet has always been censored, everywhere, all the time. People just think it wasn't because sometimes it let them be edgy racist shitlords and they confused that with unfettered freedom of speech. Still do, unfortunately.
  - account42 5y ago
    Which CDN is against censorship? And don't say Cloudflare.
- core-utility 5y ago
  I'm not sure what site you're referring to, and that proves my following point.... There are multiple CDN providers. Unless they're all doing this, OP doesn't have to go with the specific one you're calling out here and can still reap the benefits.

I guess people want their site to be available when it gets viral?

by qnsi 5y ago

I guess people want their site to be available when it gets viral?

tomc1985 5y ago

By contracting with a private company known for shielding propagandists Totally in line with the OSS ethos.... not

mst 5y ago
Being against censorship of even very stupid shit is absolutely in line with the old school hacker ethos. "The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it" was absolutely a thing. [[shakes crutch at the kids on his lawn]]
- tomc1985 5y ago
  I am generally against censorship but had to revise that stance after I realized we've given a global platform to manipulative idiots truly unworthy of global self-expression. If they want to espouse their crap they can stand on a real soapbox and shout at crowds, but nothing more
  - gameman144 5y ago
    Neat, and who decides whose "crap" is unworthy of freedom of speech? Like, my main objection with censorship isn't "I think that this particular idea is worthy of defending", it's that any mechanism that lets people censor bad opinions could also by used to censor good opinions, and that mechanism is way too powerful and prone to abuse for my comfort.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      Yeah yeah yeah. I know. And I stopped caring. The that deserve to be muzzled (or worse, but that's not appropriate here...) are the manipulators of all kinds and colors. If the message has any kind of CTA, particularly political, it should be suppressed. Left, right, commerical, political, it doesn't matter. Suppress them all.
      - gameman144 5y ago
        Just so I am clear, is "CTA" here "call-to-action". And you're against anything with a call-to-action in it? Like, call me out if this is the wrong acronym, or if I'm misinterpreting, but wouldn't all these be banned then? > Get out and vote! > Get vaccinated! > Sign your kids up for school by August 15th! > Read to your kids! > File your taxes by April 15th! Like, is that actually your position? Not trying to rebut (yet), but that seems like a very very different standard than what exists today if so.
        tomc1985 5y ago
        Pretty much. People are being pulled in a thousand different directions by people with their calls-to-action. Mainly targeting advertisements and political messaging. More prosaic stuff like filing your taxes on time can be conveyed effectively without commanding people to do things. "Taxes are due by April 15th" would work fine, for example.
        fsflover 5y ago
        > People are being pulled in a thousand different directions by people with their calls-to-action. Is that a bad thing? > "Taxes are due by April 15th" would work fine, for example. "Climate action is due now"
        tomc1985 5y ago
        > "Climate action is due now" Couple that with some of the evidence as to why and you have a pretty good message to get out. So very many people don't like being told what to do, and all we do is yell at them with commands and imperatives. Personally it has given me a burning contempt for the kind of folks that promulgate this stuff. If someone wants to compel me into action then they need to convince me on its merits, and those merits alone.
        fsflover 5y ago
        So you are not calling to suppress all political calls. You are calling for reasoning. I agree here.
    - mst 5y ago
      I find reading the way much of society reacted to the original suffragettes very useful for calibration purposes. "Actually, women should be able to vote" would absolutely have been censored entirely had the establishment then had the sort of tools people are advocating to build now.
    - dTal 5y ago
      The fundamental problem is that we need some way of separating good ideas from bad, as a society. Sure, it was a big leap forward when we switched from "whatever the king says" to "let everyone shout as loud as they can and whoever shouts the loudest wins", but the truth we have to face up to is that neither method works particularly well, especially in the age of the internet. So, is there a better system? A way we can bubble "good" ideas up and suppress "bad" ideas, ideally without some corruptible central arbiter? And, will such a system inevitably be viewed as "censorship" by some, purely on the principle that the current shouting-based system favors them more than a meritocratic one would?
- krapp 5y ago
  >"The internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it" was absolutely a thing. It was actually never a thing. The internet has always been censored, everywhere, all the time. People just think it wasn't because sometimes it let them be edgy racist shitlords and they confused that with unfettered freedom of speech. Still do, unfortunately.
- account42 5y ago
  Which CDN is against censorship? And don't say Cloudflare.
core-utility 5y ago
I'm not sure what site you're referring to, and that proves my following point.... There are multiple CDN providers. Unless they're all doing this, OP doesn't have to go with the specific one you're calling out here and can still reap the benefits.