36 ms·

What does this mean or rather what does this look like? When I see these I never understand if it’s for or against governmental free speech. As I understand it

What does this mean or rather what does this look like? When I see these I never understand if it’s for or against governmental free speech. As I understand it , services under governmental control are under even more free speech restrictions than privateer services since they have a duty to crack down on whatever values a government is beholden to (anti-porn, anti-illegal activity, anti-Anonymization). What is the end goal here?

oblio 5y ago
Ok, non profit then. Have some neutral org not chasing profits improve what it has instead of shoving dark design patterns and closing APIs in order to sell more ads.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  What is “neutral”? As I see it your target 3 different things here. To be honest interpolation is something that will be ripe for abuse by actors like 4Chan just because they can. I’m not seeing a way to ensure the banning of users while allowing interoperability that isn’t solved already by email. If the solution to this is to not allow the banning of users, then how does one combat things such as child porn, revenge porn, etc.
  - oblio 5y ago
    I'm not for decentralized solutions since I don't think their UX can scale. Theoretically maybe they can, but in my eyes it's a P=NP hard problem right now. I'm also not for absolute free speech, so yes, users should be banable in case of abuse. The main thing I'm against is the fact we're taking for granted various methods of online communication (Twitter like broadcast, Reddit-like centralized forums, plus I'd actually put WhatsApp like instant messengers here). And they should just be dumb pipes. They shouldn't try to add a ton of smart features they sell to <<other companies>>. Because their incentives are out of alignment with their direct user needs. They will serve whoever pays them instead of whoever uses them. The classic enterprise software dilemma which in that case creates functionally horrible software. For online software it creates morally horrible software, instead.

oblio 5y ago

Ok, non profit then. Have some neutral org not chasing profits improve what it has instead of shoving dark design patterns and closing APIs in order to sell more ads.

Jcowell 5y ago
What is “neutral”? As I see it your target 3 different things here. To be honest interpolation is something that will be ripe for abuse by actors like 4Chan just because they can. I’m not seeing a way to ensure the banning of users while allowing interoperability that isn’t solved already by email. If the solution to this is to not allow the banning of users, then how does one combat things such as child porn, revenge porn, etc.
- oblio 5y ago
  I'm not for decentralized solutions since I don't think their UX can scale. Theoretically maybe they can, but in my eyes it's a P=NP hard problem right now. I'm also not for absolute free speech, so yes, users should be banable in case of abuse. The main thing I'm against is the fact we're taking for granted various methods of online communication (Twitter like broadcast, Reddit-like centralized forums, plus I'd actually put WhatsApp like instant messengers here). And they should just be dumb pipes. They shouldn't try to add a ton of smart features they sell to <<other companies>>. Because their incentives are out of alignment with their direct user needs. They will serve whoever pays them instead of whoever uses them. The classic enterprise software dilemma which in that case creates functionally horrible software. For online software it creates morally horrible software, instead.