4 ms·

There may be no single thing that is "web3" but there is something I will fight hard for that I think justifies the term: ways to use the internet for the movem

There may be no single thing that is "web3" but there is something I will fight hard for that I think justifies the term: ways to use the internet for the movement and coordination of information and value that nobody can control or censor and anyone can participate in. That's it. That's all that needs to happen to keep me on side. The more our online lives and worlds fulfil the above statement, the better.

davidw 5y ago
Ironically, one of the good things about HN is that dang et al do a lot of work moderating it.
- barnabee 5y ago
  Absolutely, communities need moderation! However, the internet is infrastructure and right now both governments and service providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google effectively force moderation on communities becasue they increasingly control the infrastructure and methods of access that communitites need to use that infrastructure. The goal of "web3" or decentralisation in general should be to remove those layers and give communities complete freedom and control over how and if they moderate content.
  - bendavis381 5y ago
    What’s stopping you (or anyone) from building these communities now with existing tech?
    - Karunamon 5y ago
      What isn't? Every single stepping stone on that path uses someone else's infrastructure, who are able and willing to shut you down for any or no reason. To activate your free speech rights, first buy a computer and build your own datacenter. Next, start your own ISP. Finally, tell others about your site, without piggybacking on any existing sites. In this way, all citizens can express their views without fear of censorship… and without fear of anyone ever noticing. https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
      - foxfluff 5y ago
        It doesn't even stop at the ISP, unless you intend to span the globe with your own cables. Otherwise you're buying transit from private corporations and subject to their whims. It's pretty much build your own internet if you want true freedom of speech on the internet.
  - preseinger 5y ago
    Complete freedom in this sense is not an abstract good. Society is made worse if it allows a community of misogynists to exist and self-govern. Autonomy can only be ethical with limits.
    - maccolgan 5y ago
      Who determines the limits? What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you? It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded.
      - preseinger 5y ago
        > Who determines the limits? The limits are determined by society, usually through the vehicle of government. > What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you? Then I petition society to bend the collective opinion towards my own, or I change my opinion to be more in line with society. > It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded. The whole point of societies, in the most general sense, is to improve the lives of it's members, in aggregate, over time. Or, as the Buddhists say, to reduce suffering. Systematic exclusion of antisocial and/or deleterious actors is an explicit design goal of functioning societies. To accomplish this goal societies must first acknowledge that the essential nature of their task is subjective, and requires moral judgment. This can produce bad outcomes, sure. But that possibility doesn't invalidate the approach. Laws can also be used to oppress, but we don't throw our hands up and say justice is impossible.

davidw 5y ago

Ironically, one of the good things about HN is that dang et al do a lot of work moderating it.

barnabee 5y ago
Absolutely, communities need moderation! However, the internet is infrastructure and right now both governments and service providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google effectively force moderation on communities becasue they increasingly control the infrastructure and methods of access that communitites need to use that infrastructure. The goal of "web3" or decentralisation in general should be to remove those layers and give communities complete freedom and control over how and if they moderate content.
- bendavis381 5y ago
  What’s stopping you (or anyone) from building these communities now with existing tech?
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    What isn't? Every single stepping stone on that path uses someone else's infrastructure, who are able and willing to shut you down for any or no reason. To activate your free speech rights, first buy a computer and build your own datacenter. Next, start your own ISP. Finally, tell others about your site, without piggybacking on any existing sites. In this way, all citizens can express their views without fear of censorship… and without fear of anyone ever noticing. https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/index.html https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      It doesn't even stop at the ISP, unless you intend to span the globe with your own cables. Otherwise you're buying transit from private corporations and subject to their whims. It's pretty much build your own internet if you want true freedom of speech on the internet.
- preseinger 5y ago
  Complete freedom in this sense is not an abstract good. Society is made worse if it allows a community of misogynists to exist and self-govern. Autonomy can only be ethical with limits.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Who determines the limits? What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you? It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded.
    - preseinger 5y ago
      > Who determines the limits? The limits are determined by society, usually through the vehicle of government. > What if the determiner of the limits disagree with you? Then I petition society to bend the collective opinion towards my own, or I change my opinion to be more in line with society. > It's all fun and sexy to make limits until you are systematically excluded. The whole point of societies, in the most general sense, is to improve the lives of it's members, in aggregate, over time. Or, as the Buddhists say, to reduce suffering. Systematic exclusion of antisocial and/or deleterious actors is an explicit design goal of functioning societies. To accomplish this goal societies must first acknowledge that the essential nature of their task is subjective, and requires moral judgment. This can produce bad outcomes, sure. But that possibility doesn't invalidate the approach. Laws can also be used to oppress, but we don't throw our hands up and say justice is impossible.