4 ms·

Your statement is incomplete, and presents only the framing "abuse was not eliminated", as if eliminating abuse were a boolean Y/N flag and therefore all steps

Your statement is incomplete, and presents only the framing "abuse was not eliminated", as if eliminating abuse were a boolean Y/N flag and therefore all steps taken to date are a total failure. The two centralized networks you referenced have eliminated some abuse from their network by taking those steps. As I said elsethread, I won't try to persuade you that it's right for them to have taken steps, but I'm certain we still both agree that it's impossible to completely eliminate abuse from any system containing user-generated content, and therefore the metric of success you set ("eliminated") is provably unattainable, which does^ invalidate your framing. ^ (unless you think it's possible to fully eliminate abuse, in which case you have a trillion dollar startup idea to pursue, because we all sure need that!)

southerntofu 5y ago
> The two centralized networks you referenced have eliminated some abuse from their network by taking those steps. That is true, but at the same time they have also eliminated many legitimate users and placed remaining users in dangerous situations by requesting more personal information that can and will be leaked and will be used again them. Also, their anti-abuse model relies exclusively on the benevolence of law enforcement: that's why they collect more information in order to cooperate with law enforcement. However in most (all?) parts of the world law enforcement is neither concerned with protecting people, especially victims of cyber-harassment and misogynistic violence. Internally, Facebook and such platforms usually combat violent (as in, blood is visible) and "indecent" (a woman breastfeeding in a photo, what a scandal) content but not hateful fascist/masculinist propaganda. It usually takes a massive media scandal for such platforms to close down well-known groups coordinating harassment/doxxing campaigns. From my personal and political perspective as a politically-active non-binary person, that tradeoff is not worth it. But i can understand and respect if your perspective on the matter is different. > unless you think it's possible to fully eliminate abuse I don't think it's possible to fully eliminate abuse ever, whether in cyberspace or in the physical space. We can however, develop collective processes and reflexes in order to strongly mitigate the harm done by people attempting abuse. From a protocol's perspective, reputation systems and WoTs are not hard to specify. The real problem that has not truly been explored yet is how to develop a good UI/UX for this pattern, where the user can turn many knobs until they feel safe, but they don't have to do it in order to enjoy reasonable defaults. I'm not at all saying it's an easy problem to tackle, but there is also interest in anti-abuse systems in other federated protocols such as ActivityPub. See for example this talk "Decentralized social networks vs the trolls" from the last AP Conference: https://conf.tube/videos/watch/d8c8ed69-79f0-4987-bafe-84c01f38f966 https://conf.tube/videos/watch/d8c8ed69-79f0-4987-bafe-84c01... I sure hope we can make a better situation overall, and that sacrificing privacy to reach that is not an option on the table. Privacy/pseudonymity is a fundamental pillar of anti-abuse schemes and removing it for short-term gains is sure to backfire sooner or later down the road.

southerntofu 5y ago

> The two centralized networks you referenced have eliminated some abuse from their network by taking those steps. That is true, but at the same time they have also eliminated many legitimate users and placed remaining users in dangerous situations by requesting more personal information that can and will be leaked and will be used again them. Also, their anti-abuse model relies exclusively on the benevolence of law enforcement: that's why they collect more information in order to cooperate with law enforcement. However in most (all?) parts of the world law enforcement is neither concerned with protecting people, especially victims of cyber-harassment and misogynistic violence. Internally, Facebook and such platforms usually combat violent (as in, blood is visible) and "indecent" (a woman breastfeeding in a photo, what a scandal) content but not hateful fascist/masculinist propaganda. It usually takes a massive media scandal for such platforms to close down well-known groups coordinating harassment/doxxing campaigns. From my personal and political perspective as a politically-active non-binary person, that tradeoff is not worth it. But i can understand and respect if your perspective on the matter is different. > unless you think it's possible to fully eliminate abuse I don't think it's possible to fully eliminate abuse ever, whether in cyberspace or in the physical space. We can however, develop collective processes and reflexes in order to strongly mitigate the harm done by people attempting abuse. From a protocol's perspective, reputation systems and WoTs are not hard to specify. The real problem that has not truly been explored yet is how to develop a good UI/UX for this pattern, where the user can turn many knobs until they feel safe, but they don't have to do it in order to enjoy reasonable defaults. I'm not at all saying it's an easy problem to tackle, but there is also interest in anti-abuse systems in other federated protocols such as ActivityPub. See for example this talk "Decentralized social networks vs the trolls" from the last AP Conference: https://conf.tube/videos/watch/d8c8ed69-79f0-4987-bafe-84c01f38f966 https://conf.tube/videos/watch/d8c8ed69-79f0-4987-bafe-84c01... I sure hope we can make a better situation overall, and that sacrificing privacy to reach that is not an option on the table. Privacy/pseudonymity is a fundamental pillar of anti-abuse schemes and removing it for short-term gains is sure to backfire sooner or later down the road.