5 ms·

> Centralization has also created broader societal tensions, which we see in the debates over subjects like fake news, state sponsored bots, “no platforming” of

> Centralization has also created broader societal tensions, which we see in the debates over subjects like fake news, state sponsored bots, “no platforming” of users, EU privacy laws, and algorithmic biases. These debates will only intensify in the coming years. This doesn't make any sense to me. It sure looks like motivated reasoning. What's the connection? The fewer sites there are, the more fake the news there will be? Why? State sponsored bots benefit from there being fewer platforms? When everyone had a blog, were blogs ever known for keeping out comments from bots? EU privacy laws only apply to large centralized sites? C'mon. I can see “no platforming” of users and algorithmic biases being related to centralization at least.

cuteboy19 4y ago
Are they saying that the GDPR doesn't apply to you if you're "decentralised"? And that's somehow good?
kareemsabri 4y ago
Perhaps they mean the _debate_ over these subjects (fake news etc.) is exacerbated by the existence of a centralized authority to appeal to to remove it. Before Facebook I don't recall much debate over removing something from the broader, decentralized internet.
- TurningCanadian 4y ago
  That makes sense, thanks. There were DMCA takedowns before centralization, and there was certainly debate over SOPA/PIPA though. Other illegal content was taken down in the past too. (Libel, exploitative media, etc) I think the difference now is that we've widely experienced actual real-life impacts of unfiltered & unregulated but widely circulated speech. Attacks by incels and dis/misinformation about COVID come to mind. Many people now realize that they and/or society at large been exposed to and tricked by malicious actors, or at least seen their effects. There have been several protests stirred up by foreign operatives for example. IMO that shouldn't be legal, but in a way it's another form of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater that we have to grapple with defining and regulating.

cuteboy19 4y ago

Are they saying that the GDPR doesn't apply to you if you're "decentralised"? And that's somehow good?

kareemsabri 4y ago

Perhaps they mean the _debate_ over these subjects (fake news etc.) is exacerbated by the existence of a centralized authority to appeal to to remove it. Before Facebook I don't recall much debate over removing something from the broader, decentralized internet.

TurningCanadian 4y ago
That makes sense, thanks. There were DMCA takedowns before centralization, and there was certainly debate over SOPA/PIPA though. Other illegal content was taken down in the past too. (Libel, exploitative media, etc) I think the difference now is that we've widely experienced actual real-life impacts of unfiltered & unregulated but widely circulated speech. Attacks by incels and dis/misinformation about COVID come to mind. Many people now realize that they and/or society at large been exposed to and tricked by malicious actors, or at least seen their effects. There have been several protests stirred up by foreign operatives for example. IMO that shouldn't be legal, but in a way it's another form of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater that we have to grapple with defining and regulating.