7 ms·

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!”
            • greesil 4y ago
              Do you have a link to these strawmen?
          • revscat 4y ago
            Echoing the sibling to this, this is not a viewpoint I have seen expressed before. Do you have a link?
            • greesil 4y ago
              A link to their own opinions? Huh?
          • Karunamon 4y ago
            It would be equally refreshing to see "moderation" advocates acknowledge that it's not just the "far right" being bullied and censored off of mainstream platforms. That straw man incinerated and replaced with "mainstream conservative content", you still are not going to get any examples because the one providing that will be voted/flagged into invisibility, or if not that, the resulting discussion will be derailed into quibbling about the specific example rather than the much more important general principle. It would be not at all honest to imply that this forum is anything but generally hostile to the American right, regardless of how extreme or not the take is. With that in mind, it is no surprise that specific positions are only ever mentioned indirectly, or negatively.
            • cycomanic 4y ago
              Yes no proponent of this law ever complained about ISIS recruiting accounts being banned by twitter.
              • 4y ago
      • evrydayhustling 4y ago
        So free speech = free access to a high volume of people?
        • infotogivenm 4y ago
          “I’ve been sending the Times a list of headlines to publish every week, and so far they’ve all been censored your honor!”
          • cowtools 4y ago
            Email and other Internet infrastructure is more analogous to the phone company than news publishing, because you do not need to "peer" with other newspapers to get published. Imagine if Bell was touchy about letting "undesirables" use their service.
            • infotogivenm 4y ago
              Oh I 100% agree, if this argument were about the ISPs, which control access to the infrastructure via local monopolies. It’s not. It’s about individual private publishers, of which there are potentially infinite. That is the beauty of the internet.
              • cowtools 4y ago
                The internet infrastructure is completely controlled via local monopolies and bureaucracies, and this extends beyond ISPs. The entire DNS and PKI system for example is simply a racketeering scheme for registrars and CAs. In general the internet (from the hardware to application-level) is structured in such a way that is weak to sybil attacks, and this requires central (usually corporate) entities to discriminate on traffic. EMail is one such example: there is no meaningful way to filter spam, so the peering relationships between mail providers break down unless they each implement some sybil-proofing on their own side. The end product is that everyone is forced to use a provider like Google, and play a corporate-political game to stay in good favor with their peers. This is because there is no spam-resistance on Email application level We've seen a similar situation this week with a controversial forum called KiwiFarm taken down by DDoS. They need to maintain a political relationship with their DDoS-protection provider, CloudFlare, who also controls a massive chunk of the internet infrastructure. This is all so that there can be a central entity that discriminates on the traffic, as there's no spam resistance features on IP level. https://secushare.org/broken-internet https://secushare.org/broken-internet
      • scarface74 4y ago
        You mean like Truth Social?
    • ekianjo 4y ago
      Ask Parler