4 ms·

> Please educate yourself... Side note on communication here. Any time someone uses a phrase like "Please educate yourself on $THING", they lose a lot of cred

> Please educate yourself... Side note on communication here. Any time someone uses a phrase like "Please educate yourself on $THING", they lose a lot of credibility, at least in the context of that communication. Why? 1) It comes across as incredibly dismissive of both any knowledge that that individual may have - especially on HN, I'm pretty sure we're all familiar with YouTube's scale - and of the idea that there may be missing information, on either the situation or context for the other persons point of view. 2) It's quite condescending as well - and if someone thinks that you are coming at a conversation from a combative place, they won't want to listen to what you are saying. Why should they listen if they think you don't care? 3) It's often used to paint broad strokes in places broad strokes may not be appropriate, and the phrase being attached to that makes it lose credibility even when it is appropriate. --- Ok, now a response to the actual content: I don't know why we've decided to allow things to exist "at scale" willy nilly. If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". No one is entitled to a business model.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
titzer 5y ago
> If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". Hear! Hear! We shouldn't have to give over society to the fattest, most insatiable stomachs masquerading as technology companies.
- emteycz 5y ago
  Well don't do that. I'm not doing it and I'm fine. It's not like Youtube is the society.
  - titzer 5y ago
    I'm trying to avoid getting by zombies too, but their number keeps growing and they're generating nice profits for ZombieCorp!
foxfluff 5y ago
> If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". I've taken to thinking of this sort of scaling as being the digital equivalent of race to the bottom (i.e. cheap mass-produced garbage products).
vikingerik 5y ago
> I don't know why we've decided to allow things to exist "at scale" willy nilly. Because we allow things to exist by default. Because we're a free society. If you want an exception, then recognize and carve that out within the democratic process, not by preemptively applying authoritarianism.
- Shared404 5y ago
  > If you want an exception, then recognize and carve that out within the democratic process, not by preemptively applying authoritarianism. You mean like I'm advocating for now? We've let it exist, and I am now advocating for it to be broken up - like I've been for a while. Edit: I should specify - I am advocating for platforms at the scale of Facebook/Youtube/Twitter to be broken up in general, with an explicit preference towards federated services. We've let them run, and it's time for this generations round of trust busting. I'm am advocating for it to be run through a legal manner though, and discussed and acted upon via democratic means. I think that all over comments on my gp we've gotten off topic, my email is available in my profile for anyone who wants to discuss this sort of thing further in any manner.
  - abnercoimbre 5y ago
    Which federated services would you advocate for? Just want a sampling for my own research. I would assume Matrix is one (for chat servers.) What are some others?
    - Shared404 5y ago
      As far as existing tech goes, I personally like and use Matrix. Mastodon seems promising as a social media replacement, and PeerTube has the tech for YouTube replacements. Both of these two are using ActivityPub, which is on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub The problem comes with content. Matrix is in the strongest position at the moment imho - moving chat platform has the least network effect, and it has the most effective (only?) bridges between "standard" centralized services out of the three. Mastodon has a decent presence, especially of tech people, but not so much outside of the tech or "got banned from twitter" bubbles. PeerTube is in the weakest position of the three afaict - it's mostly again the tech bubble and the "got banned from youtube bubble", but with a much worse distribution. The tech on Matrix and Mastodon at least seems well established though[0], and I think both would succeed if not for the massive network effects of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. My honest opinion is that even if a federated solution doesn't exist or isn't far enough along yet for any of the above it would be better to break down the current state of things and force the creation of one. [0] I've not used Peertube really, so I don't know how far along it is.
Jiro 5y ago
>If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". >No one is entitled to a business model. When it's just ordinary American conservatives being censored by social media, somehow nobody says things like that. Ban Trump and allow the Taliban? There's nothing wrong with that, they're private individuals, they can ban whatever they want. What do you mean nobody is entitled to a business model? Go away with your freeze peach.
- Shared404 5y ago
  They can ban who they want. <us-pov> FWIW, I see much more domestic harm in letting unchecked lies be spouted by US politicians and having that beamed into our minds non-stop then in allowing people to see atrocities committed by people on the other side of the world. Yes that goes both ways, I'm an independent. Edited again: Got too deep into politics on that first edit. Suffice it to say one party is worse than the other in my opinion, and that may color my POV. I still expect to see those who are lying or encouraging violence banned/fact-checked/whatever - on both sides equally. If one side still has it happen more under those circumstances, I guess that says more about the side then the circumstance. </us-pov> Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. If I say something incredibly dumb, I expect to be mocked. If I say something hateful/dangerous, I expect people to avoid being associated with me - including being banned under certain circumstances.
  - alecbz 5y ago
    This thread feels like it's getting pretty far-removed from the original topic but: I wish we wouldn't equate "free speech" with the first amendment. IMO "free speech" is a much broader concept than the specific legal protections outlined in 1A. Mocking people for saying things you disagree with ("dumb things") doesn't violate 1A, but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the general ethos of free speech.
    - Shared404 5y ago
      +1 I feel I failed to communicate all aspects of my POV above - I definitely agree with this. Also yeah, this did get off topic and I apologize for pushing that even further just now. In general, I try to advocate more for polite conversation and actual exchange/malleability of ideas - I just also expect for not everyone to agree with that, and to get mocked if I say something stupid. The bigger thing is association - If I say something that someone else finds reprehensible, I bear them no ill will for trying to stop themselves from being associated with me, regardless of if that's through banning/mocking/public press conference[0]/a music video[0]/anything else. [0] I'm glad I don't have a big enough platform to worry about these though.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

titzer 5y ago

> If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". Hear! Hear! We shouldn't have to give over society to the fattest, most insatiable stomachs masquerading as technology companies.

emteycz 5y ago
Well don't do that. I'm not doing it and I'm fine. It's not like Youtube is the society.
- titzer 5y ago
  I'm trying to avoid getting by zombies too, but their number keeps growing and they're generating nice profits for ZombieCorp!

foxfluff 5y ago

> If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". I've taken to thinking of this sort of scaling as being the digital equivalent of race to the bottom (i.e. cheap mass-produced garbage products).

vikingerik 5y ago

> I don't know why we've decided to allow things to exist "at scale" willy nilly. Because we allow things to exist by default. Because we're a free society. If you want an exception, then recognize and carve that out within the democratic process, not by preemptively applying authoritarianism.

Shared404 5y ago
> If you want an exception, then recognize and carve that out within the democratic process, not by preemptively applying authoritarianism. You mean like I'm advocating for now? We've let it exist, and I am now advocating for it to be broken up - like I've been for a while. Edit: I should specify - I am advocating for platforms at the scale of Facebook/Youtube/Twitter to be broken up in general, with an explicit preference towards federated services. We've let them run, and it's time for this generations round of trust busting. I'm am advocating for it to be run through a legal manner though, and discussed and acted upon via democratic means. I think that all over comments on my gp we've gotten off topic, my email is available in my profile for anyone who wants to discuss this sort of thing further in any manner.
- abnercoimbre 5y ago
  Which federated services would you advocate for? Just want a sampling for my own research. I would assume Matrix is one (for chat servers.) What are some others?
  - Shared404 5y ago
    As far as existing tech goes, I personally like and use Matrix. Mastodon seems promising as a social media replacement, and PeerTube has the tech for YouTube replacements. Both of these two are using ActivityPub, which is on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub The problem comes with content. Matrix is in the strongest position at the moment imho - moving chat platform has the least network effect, and it has the most effective (only?) bridges between "standard" centralized services out of the three. Mastodon has a decent presence, especially of tech people, but not so much outside of the tech or "got banned from twitter" bubbles. PeerTube is in the weakest position of the three afaict - it's mostly again the tech bubble and the "got banned from youtube bubble", but with a much worse distribution. The tech on Matrix and Mastodon at least seems well established though[0], and I think both would succeed if not for the massive network effects of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. My honest opinion is that even if a federated solution doesn't exist or isn't far enough along yet for any of the above it would be better to break down the current state of things and force the creation of one. [0] I've not used Peertube really, so I don't know how far along it is.

Jiro 5y ago

>If something becomes a net negative "at scale", don't allow it to be "at scale". >No one is entitled to a business model. When it's just ordinary American conservatives being censored by social media, somehow nobody says things like that. Ban Trump and allow the Taliban? There's nothing wrong with that, they're private individuals, they can ban whatever they want. What do you mean nobody is entitled to a business model? Go away with your freeze peach.

Shared404 5y ago
They can ban who they want. <us-pov> FWIW, I see much more domestic harm in letting unchecked lies be spouted by US politicians and having that beamed into our minds non-stop then in allowing people to see atrocities committed by people on the other side of the world. Yes that goes both ways, I'm an independent. Edited again: Got too deep into politics on that first edit. Suffice it to say one party is worse than the other in my opinion, and that may color my POV. I still expect to see those who are lying or encouraging violence banned/fact-checked/whatever - on both sides equally. If one side still has it happen more under those circumstances, I guess that says more about the side then the circumstance. </us-pov> Also, free speech isn't immunity from repercussions. If I say something incredibly dumb, I expect to be mocked. If I say something hateful/dangerous, I expect people to avoid being associated with me - including being banned under certain circumstances.
- alecbz 5y ago
  This thread feels like it's getting pretty far-removed from the original topic but: I wish we wouldn't equate "free speech" with the first amendment. IMO "free speech" is a much broader concept than the specific legal protections outlined in 1A. Mocking people for saying things you disagree with ("dumb things") doesn't violate 1A, but that doesn't mean it's aligned with the general ethos of free speech.
  - Shared404 5y ago
    +1 I feel I failed to communicate all aspects of my POV above - I definitely agree with this. Also yeah, this did get off topic and I apologize for pushing that even further just now. In general, I try to advocate more for polite conversation and actual exchange/malleability of ideas - I just also expect for not everyone to agree with that, and to get mocked if I say something stupid. The bigger thing is association - If I say something that someone else finds reprehensible, I bear them no ill will for trying to stop themselves from being associated with me, regardless of if that's through banning/mocking/public press conference[0]/a music video[0]/anything else. [0] I'm glad I don't have a big enough platform to worry about these though.