7 ms·

Having run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told the

Having run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told them to "sort it out" themselves.

adventured 4y ago
There's a very simple solution that works very well with social media for that. You don't receive the OP's messages unless you are friends him them, or change your default settings to allow strangers to message you.
- hedora 4y ago
  Or, like linkedin: Charge a small amount to send messages to non-friends.
ajvs 4y ago
Or following the mail example, adopt a spam control mechanism that doesn't require coding it yourself.
coffeeblack 4y ago
You misunderstood. Don’t require users to build their bubbles, but have providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from. You could even have external bubble providers that offer different technologies and qualities of filters. Just don’t have one centralised overlord.
- greesil 4y ago
  we have a centralized overlord?
  - eitland 4y ago
    Several: - Google (including GMail) - Twitter - Meta (Facebook, Instagram)
    - greesil 4y ago
      And discussion outside of these platforms is impossible?
      - cmoscoso 4y ago
        Yes.
      - sfifs 4y ago
        Not impossible. Insignificant in volume.
        cguess 4y ago
        He said on a platform that's controlled by any of those organizations.
        senorrib 4y ago
        They certainly did not.
        cowtools 4y ago
        It's controlled by Ycombinator, who uses the forum to showcase their own interests.
        drewrv 4y ago
        The number of people here who claim to hate moderation blows my mind. If someone thinks far right content is reasonable and good it would be refreshing to hear that take. Instead people bend themselves into logical pretzels to oppose the idea of moderation for supposedly “content neutral” reasons. It’s tiresome.
        kortilla 4y ago
        “I’m flabbergasted these strawmen I’m attacking exist!”
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  > providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from How is this different from the current internet?
  - infogulch 4y ago
    The platform is tied to the bubble. GP is proposing decoupling them, so the user can choose the platform and choose the bubble separately. > Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
    - monetus 4y ago
      Is the implication that you would have a Netflix/Hulu/Disney dynamic of... Social media subscriptions?
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
      The bubble must by necessity have some sort of interface associated with it in order to get the content to the user. There’s a generic platform (HTTP, browser/mobile APIs) and then the “bubble service” implements against those to reach the user. Seems like a completely natural form of tying to me. Are you proposing we force another layer of middlemen to be added in between there?
      - infogulch 4y ago
        I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the problems surrounding platforms regarding their control of censorship & free speech would be largely resolved if that aspect were decoupled. You may also think that the tying that bell and the railroads did with their respective infrastructure is 'natural', but that was made illegal and those platforms were forced to break up, so I don't think its appropriate to dismiss this issue offhand. I'm not interested in hashing out a complete argument and coming to a vacuous conclusion with some other random on an internet forum, I'm just saying that there seems to be a reasonable argument to be had in this direction.
- nmstoker 4y ago
  This seems like it could be substantially better than current systems. It could be effectively a crowdsource / peer recommended model where you opt in to aspects of the bubbles. So my elderly parents could get some of the safety guidance mirroring mine (eg weeding out conspiracy thought or spam) but then also picking up aspects that mirror older peers (eg reflecting their more traditional tastes) Right now there's a remarkable amount of undesirable content that gets through that ought to be easy to filter. On Twitter you see it a load with searches for regular terms that show up inappropriate content for the term, yet you don't want to set content filtering or it cuts things that are genuinely interesting but edgy!
- ericbarrett 4y ago
  If this case law holds, would it be extended to filter providers?
- hiram112 4y ago
  I can already imagine how these totally neutral "providers" like Google and Twitter would implement this, much like Microsoft abuses their OS monopoly to ensure 90% of non-tech-savvy users will eventually be using Edge. Sign up for Twitter. Immediately you're greeted with a list of "suggested filters" that will pop up again and again, using dark patterns eventually, until you either give in or are tricked into adding Twitter's highly recommended "safe filter plus package" that uses the exact same shadow bans and biased algorithms used by default today.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    Good, and then we'll get the government to start banning dark patterns. Actually, I suspect that such a law would be on even shakier First Amendment grounds, but here's a test that might bring this regulation into the realms of competition law rather than regulating speech: Whenever a (sufficiently large) platform makes a UI change about which the FTC receive multiple negative comments, that platform is required to run a poll of (some random subset of) its users, with a wording specified by the FTC, asking the users if they like the change or they find it manipulative. If most users think that the change is negative, then that's a de facto / prima facie case of the platform abusing its monopoly power to the detriment of its users, since if there were a free market then those users would simply move to a competing platform.
- ItsMonkk 4y ago
  uBlock Filters, but for email. uBlock Filters, but for Twitter. uBlock Filters, but for ... Just let us choose which ones we can activate, and if we want to see the unfiltered list we'll turn it off and refresh.
concinds 4y ago
A better comparison would be if Gmail placed emails you really want to receive in the spam for you. Actually, they wouldn't even put it in the spam folder; they'd just delete it permanently before you can read it, "for your safety". With email, if you don't want to receive someone's emails anymore, you unsubscribe. Or put it in spam (equivalent to social media block) and you won't see those emails anymore. "Platforms" claim that because they're platforms, they have a duty to "remove toxic elements from the platform". That doesn't work when they're practically monopolies for online speech, i.e. when if you get banned by one and you're famous enough, you get banned by all of them.
- zrail 4y ago
  > A better comparison would be if Gmail placed emails you really want to receive in the spam for you. Actually, they wouldn't even put it in the spam folder; they'd just delete it permanently before you can read it Gmail regularly does both of these things to me despite explicit filter rules to the contrary.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    And is that desirable?
    - zrail 4y ago
      No of course not.
- MandieD 4y ago
  GMail does this with my absentee ballots if I don't get lucky and see them go to Spam instead, because the State of Texas gives counties that really don't care about citizens who live overseas a system for generating ballots that is so slapdash that emails are from a domain that doesn't have DKIM or SPF, and the link to click is HTTP and not even an FQDN, but an IP address.
  - quantumwannabe 4y ago
hedora 4y ago
Thunderbird used to have a local spam filter. It was fine. As for phishing attacks: Education is helpful. It would help if organizations with legitimate flows that are indistinguishable from phishing attacks were made liable. (Mortgage industry: I'm looking at you.)
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  It still does ?
  - hedora 4y ago
    I haven't used their spam filter for over a decade. (Fast mail's spam filter is good enough.)
caeril 4y ago
Fair point, but if all accounts were given a standard default policy modeled around current moderation rules, and users were permitted to edit the policy from that initial point, this would be an effective solution.

Having run a mail server, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to contain the deluge of spam and phishing attacks they would get if just told them to "sort it out" themselves.

adventured 4y ago

There's a very simple solution that works very well with social media for that. You don't receive the OP's messages unless you are friends him them, or change your default settings to allow strangers to message you.

hedora 4y ago
Or, like linkedin: Charge a small amount to send messages to non-friends.

ajvs 4y ago

Or following the mail example, adopt a spam control mechanism that doesn't require coding it yourself.

coffeeblack 4y ago

You misunderstood. Don’t require users to build their bubbles, but have providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from. You could even have external bubble providers that offer different technologies and qualities of filters. Just don’t have one centralised overlord.

greesil 4y ago
we have a centralized overlord?
- eitland 4y ago
  Several: - Google (including GMail) - Twitter - Meta (Facebook, Instagram)
  - greesil 4y ago
    And discussion outside of these platforms is impossible?
    - cmoscoso 4y ago
      Yes.
    - sfifs 4y ago
      Not impossible. Insignificant in volume.
      - cguess 4y ago
        He said on a platform that's controlled by any of those organizations.
        senorrib 4y ago
        They certainly did not.
        cowtools 4y ago
        It's controlled by Ycombinator, who uses the forum to showcase their own interests.
        drewrv 4y ago
        The number of people here who claim to hate moderation blows my mind. If someone thinks far right content is reasonable and good it would be refreshing to hear that take. Instead people bend themselves into logical pretzels to oppose the idea of moderation for supposedly “content neutral” reasons. It’s tiresome.
        kortilla 4y ago
        “I’m flabbergasted these strawmen I’m attacking exist!”
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
> providers offer bubbles for a user to choose from How is this different from the current internet?
- infogulch 4y ago
  The platform is tied to the bubble. GP is proposing decoupling them, so the user can choose the platform and choose the bubble separately. > Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
  - monetus 4y ago
    Is the implication that you would have a Netflix/Hulu/Disney dynamic of... Social media subscriptions?
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    The bubble must by necessity have some sort of interface associated with it in order to get the content to the user. There’s a generic platform (HTTP, browser/mobile APIs) and then the “bubble service” implements against those to reach the user. Seems like a completely natural form of tying to me. Are you proposing we force another layer of middlemen to be added in between there?
    - infogulch 4y ago
      I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the problems surrounding platforms regarding their control of censorship & free speech would be largely resolved if that aspect were decoupled. You may also think that the tying that bell and the railroads did with their respective infrastructure is 'natural', but that was made illegal and those platforms were forced to break up, so I don't think its appropriate to dismiss this issue offhand. I'm not interested in hashing out a complete argument and coming to a vacuous conclusion with some other random on an internet forum, I'm just saying that there seems to be a reasonable argument to be had in this direction.
nmstoker 4y ago
This seems like it could be substantially better than current systems. It could be effectively a crowdsource / peer recommended model where you opt in to aspects of the bubbles. So my elderly parents could get some of the safety guidance mirroring mine (eg weeding out conspiracy thought or spam) but then also picking up aspects that mirror older peers (eg reflecting their more traditional tastes) Right now there's a remarkable amount of undesirable content that gets through that ought to be easy to filter. On Twitter you see it a load with searches for regular terms that show up inappropriate content for the term, yet you don't want to set content filtering or it cuts things that are genuinely interesting but edgy!
ericbarrett 4y ago
If this case law holds, would it be extended to filter providers?
hiram112 4y ago
I can already imagine how these totally neutral "providers" like Google and Twitter would implement this, much like Microsoft abuses their OS monopoly to ensure 90% of non-tech-savvy users will eventually be using Edge. Sign up for Twitter. Immediately you're greeted with a list of "suggested filters" that will pop up again and again, using dark patterns eventually, until you either give in or are tricked into adding Twitter's highly recommended "safe filter plus package" that uses the exact same shadow bans and biased algorithms used by default today.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Good, and then we'll get the government to start banning dark patterns. Actually, I suspect that such a law would be on even shakier First Amendment grounds, but here's a test that might bring this regulation into the realms of competition law rather than regulating speech: Whenever a (sufficiently large) platform makes a UI change about which the FTC receive multiple negative comments, that platform is required to run a poll of (some random subset of) its users, with a wording specified by the FTC, asking the users if they like the change or they find it manipulative. If most users think that the change is negative, then that's a de facto / prima facie case of the platform abusing its monopoly power to the detriment of its users, since if there were a free market then those users would simply move to a competing platform.
ItsMonkk 4y ago
uBlock Filters, but for email. uBlock Filters, but for Twitter. uBlock Filters, but for ... Just let us choose which ones we can activate, and if we want to see the unfiltered list we'll turn it off and refresh.

concinds 4y ago

A better comparison would be if Gmail placed emails you really want to receive in the spam for you. Actually, they wouldn't even put it in the spam folder; they'd just delete it permanently before you can read it, "for your safety". With email, if you don't want to receive someone's emails anymore, you unsubscribe. Or put it in spam (equivalent to social media block) and you won't see those emails anymore. "Platforms" claim that because they're platforms, they have a duty to "remove toxic elements from the platform". That doesn't work when they're practically monopolies for online speech, i.e. when if you get banned by one and you're famous enough, you get banned by all of them.

zrail 4y ago
> A better comparison would be if Gmail placed emails you really want to receive in the spam for you. Actually, they wouldn't even put it in the spam folder; they'd just delete it permanently before you can read it Gmail regularly does both of these things to me despite explicit filter rules to the contrary.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  And is that desirable?
  - zrail 4y ago
    No of course not.
MandieD 4y ago
GMail does this with my absentee ballots if I don't get lucky and see them go to Spam instead, because the State of Texas gives counties that really don't care about citizens who live overseas a system for generating ballots that is so slapdash that emails are from a domain that doesn't have DKIM or SPF, and the link to click is HTTP and not even an FQDN, but an IP address.
- quantumwannabe 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

Thunderbird used to have a local spam filter. It was fine. As for phishing attacks: Education is helpful. It would help if organizations with legitimate flows that are indistinguishable from phishing attacks were made liable. (Mortgage industry: I'm looking at you.)

BlueTemplar 4y ago
It still does ?
- hedora 4y ago
  I haven't used their spam filter for over a decade. (Fast mail's spam filter is good enough.)

caeril 4y ago

Fair point, but if all accounts were given a standard default policy modeled around current moderation rules, and users were permitted to edit the policy from that initial point, this would be an effective solution.