4 ms·
Hey guys, I have an idea: why don't we try building free-speech protocols rather than free-speech platforms? Humans are fallible. We like to think we could bui
by seanw444 4y ago
Hey guys, I have an idea: why don't we try building free-speech protocols rather than free-speech platforms?
Humans are fallible. We like to think we could build something where people can talk freely, but if the ability to censor something we don't like is presented, at some point nearly everybody will take that action because they personally deem it necessary for some greater good.
Ultimately, protocols that cannot be altered or censored (at least without significant and difficult amounts of effort) are what are necessary to obtain true free speech.
There are some groups that are understanding this, and working accordingly. LBRY for example, says exactly this in their "what is LBRY" article:
> Building protocols, not platforms, is the best way to secure a free, open internet.
As long as people use centralized services that are susceptible to fallible human intervention, that fallibility will be acted upon.
Centralization was adequate back when the internet was first brewing. Many people had common interests, people were respectful of others' data often enough that encrypted network protocols weren't deemed necessary. Now, encryption is almost required because so many people have bad intentions. The internet has grown, and so have the amount of conflicting demographics using it.
Just as we had to adopt encryption on a wide scale to keep the internet usable, adopting decentralization at a wide scale will be too. And that includes making it easy enough for normies to access that they think nothing else of it, much like how they don't care what encryption is, as long as there's a lock icon in their search bar.
- zamadatix 4y agoProtocols to exchange free speech already exist. The hard part is doing something most people consider useful with them without turning yourself into a platform.
- VikingCoder 4y ago"true free speech" is not something that is free of problems. Child Porn, Revenge Porn, National Defense secrets leaking, instructions for Chlorine Gas masquerading as instructions for making Play-Doh, libel and slander, weaponized disinformation, doxxing, harassment, threats of violence. I get there are advantages to avoiding censure, in many extremely important situations. But don't pretend like it doesn't also hurt people.
- seanw444 4y agoLife is full of hurt. That's a reality people can't come to terms with. "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
- VikingCoder 4y agoCommunication that can be censored is good. "true free speech" is the perfection you're striving for. "Life is full of hurt." Are you an arms dealer? Why not? It's profitable, and sure, people get hurt, but what's the problem with that?
- armatav 4y ago“Communication that can be censored is good”. You should be able to choose what you see, not what other people say.
- VikingCoder 4y agoI gave a list of examples. Are you legitimately okay with Ye deciding to distribute all of the following examples: Child Porn, Revenge Porn, National Defense secrets leaking, instructions for Chlorine Gas masquerading as instructions for making Play-Doh, libel and slander, weaponized disinformation, doxxing, harassment, threats of violence.
- seanw444 4y agoBeing able to stop bad at the expense of good is the perfection you're striving for. There are two different priorities here we will simply never agree on. Both harm someone.
- VikingCoder 4y agoBeing 100% immune to censorship is the perfection you're striving for. If you weren't striving for perfection then you would accept the status quo as good enough, not try to make something new.
- paxys 4y agoBecause there is no money in protocols.
- triceratops 4y agoThere's plenty of free-speech protocols, at various levels of the networking stack. TCP/IP. BitTorrent. HTTP. FTP. IRC. As long as you have an Internet connection, you have a voice.
- seanw444 4y agoI guess my point is about the adoption of said platforms. Yes, lots exist. They're too clunky or confusing for the layperson though.
- triceratops 4y agoSeeding a torrent isn't that clunky or confusing. Lots of laypeople do it. And it's practically uncensorable.
- have_faith 4y agoLay people don't interact with protocols.
- danem 4y agoTime has shown again and again that open communication protocols generally lose to walled-gardens. Open protocols stagnate, don't attract capital, and cater to enthusiasts. Most people are perfectly happy with closed platforms and the promise of openness isn't worth even minor inconveniences to them.
- mikkergp 4y agoThere are very few people who just want to speak freely. People choose a platform like twitter because they want to be heard, and they want the opportunity to be heard by people who don't want to listen.