3 ms·

As a person who supports decentralization, and a user having the ability to control what content they see, or block (without a centralized party being able to s

by stale2002 4y ago

As a person who supports decentralization, and a user having the ability to control what content they see, or block (without a centralized party being able to stop it), I support the gist of this article. But I think the author fundamentally misunderstands why people don't like the claimed upcoming Twitter changes. The pro moderation people don't like the changes, because they want the supposedly benevolent dictator to control the centralized platform, to moderate it. They want the Twitter team to be engaging in centralized moderation, and control who or who does not have access to the "digital square". Therefore, given that this is what people want, suggesting that users leave to a decentralized platform, where the user controls everything, and can choose to read "misinformation" or choose to discuss things with others saying supposedly horrible statements, is counter to those pro-moderation goals. The pro moderation goals only work where there are a couple centralized actors, all marching in lock steps, with few users on all the irrelevant alternatives. And giving users back the power, undermined this goal.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I don't think it's reasonable to describe literally everybody who is leaving Twitter as some they that want only one kind of moderation and control over digital square. I think that some people want what they understand to be misinformation off the platform because the misinformation is used in a hurtful way. E.g. gay people are pedophiles, so fill the feeds of gay people on Twitter with vitriol. I think that some people want misinformation off the platform because of the natural knee-jerk "someone is WRONG on the internet!". I don't think there's some nebulous they who consciously considers the narrative of social media as something to control. I think it's just very hard to remove bad actors in a non-centralized-tyrannical way. And I think leaving to a decentralized platform isn't a hurdle because of some weird nebulous they who want power over everything. I think it's just less intuitive. I'm a mastodon user and I think "twitter but with decentralized spaces" can be super confusing to someone who is familiar with the centralized space. Many friends who have tried to move to mastodon to enter a community I'm in have accidentally signed up on other servers by accident.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > to describe literally everybody Fortunately I am not doing that, and obviously instead describing general trends. Does that clear everything up, not that I have clarified that I am not making the stupid argument of describing literally every person, with no exceptions, and I am instead making the much more reasonable argument, of generally describing overall trends? > because the misinformation is used in a hurtful way. But they still want it removed regardless. So everything I said still applies, because the motivation for why they want it removed, does not change the fact that they do want it removed. And because they do want it removed, moving to a decentralized platform undermines this goal, because it is no longer possible for a centralized platform to remove it from the users who choose to keep watching it. > there's some nebulous they Well the "they" in this case would describe everyone who wants "misinformation", or "bad" content removed from the internet. For those people, my point applies. > I think it's just very hard to remove bad actors in a non-centralized-tyrannical way. So then you agree with me all along that decentralized platforms are harder to have content removed from. Yeah thats what I said. > they who want power over everything. I didn't say they wanted power. I said that they wanted content removed. So yes, to those people, who want content removed, a decentralized platform is a hurdle, because decentralization makes it more difficult to have content removed, which you already agreed is the case.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    I suspect the reason why they think that leaving censored platforms is useful for them is that everybody apes the black civil rights struggle in the US whenever they have any political disagreement, and it feels like a boycott. They just don't remember that the reason boycotts work is because they do economic damage, and instead think that there's some other magical effect that will cause Twitter et. al. to shut up shop after they leave (the most commonly cited is that "it will turn into 4chan and everybody else will leave.") But not only would social networks not turn into 4chan if they reverted to pre-2020 moderation policies, but 4chan has been around for 20 years. If you want to keep people from talking to each other, starving them of your presence is not going to be the way to do it.
    - 4y ago
ljw1001 4y ago
Aside from some mistakes, twitter already erred on the side of no moderation: when did they ban trump?. What people don’t like is the idea of the world’s richest child turning it into Hate Central and a megaphone for Putin. That said, his solution has only the advantage that in a decentralized world, it’s harder for a motivated bad actor to have a global impact. Ultimately decentralization is a techno attempt to fix a political problem. It doesn’t work
- briantakita 4y ago
  > Hate Central and a megaphone for Putin That doesn't sound objective at all & a diminishing number of people subscribe to that narrative. > it’s harder for a motivated bad actor to have a global impact Most of the world (most of Eurasia, the Global South, & many in the West) consider the current hegemonic power as the "motivated bad actor"...and the actions/reactions of the hegemonic power only prove their point. Soon the hegemonic power will no longer be in charge. As the hegemon loses influence, those who were once not inclined to speak about the situation will start talking about it...which is what we are seeing right now. The hegemon will want to cling to it's power by suppressing the speech of those who say things that undermine the hegemon's position...
pessimizer 4y ago
I'm in your same camp, absolutely pro-decentralization and anti-Twitter/corporate social networking. But the fact is that what people are complaining about when it comes to Twitter moderation is not that they will see objectionable opinions, but that the people who have objectionable opinions are able to speak anywhere, even to each other. Decentralization will not silence people with objectionable opinions (assuming someone like a Musk allows more range of opinion on Twitter), so it's not a solution to the problems of the pro-political-moderation camp, it's the opposite of one. The way you censor opinions (as a government) is to encourage more centralization - and by threatening to pick a different favorite if the right opinions aren't censored. It's an end-run around prior restraint.
- haunter 4y ago
  >But the fact is that what people are complaining about when it comes to Twitter moderation is not that they will see objectionable opinions, but that the people who have objectionable opinions are able to speak anywhere, even to each other. I'm also baffeld by this but that's one of the biggest selling point of Mastodon apparently. Everyone deserves their own safe space (except those who we don't like) so just make multiple little echo chambers.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Living in echo chambers is what society is. Family groups, friend groups, social groups - the choosing who you talk to, who you spend time with, what you listen to is basic freedom. It's what makes people happy. Social Media is one of the first antipatterns here, showing down interactions with hated people down everyones throats. Basically, every person needs to constantly, every day suffer their annoying uncle at thanksgiving. No wonder it's causing mental health issues.
mschuster91 4y ago
> They want the Twitter team to be engaging in centralized moderation, and control who or who does not have access to the "digital square". Because that is just how an "analog square" works: shout out the N-word in a public place in any large city and you will face consequences for that. Either by police or by anyone else hearing you. "Analog" society keeps itself relatively clean, there is no reason why the "digital" society should allow racism and other forms of hate.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Because that is just how an "analog square" works There are actually laws that force anolog public squares, even private owned ones, to allow people to do things like protest on their property. You should check out the court case, pruneyard. It was about a california law, that forces private malls to allow people to engage in political space on their property. As in, the private property owner, was prevented by law from removing the protestors from their analog square.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    See also National socialist party of America vs. village of Skokie SCOTUS case and related cases.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > shout out the N-word in a public place in any large city and you will face consequences for that. Either by police or by anyone else hearing you. This is not true.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I don't think it's reasonable to describe literally everybody who is leaving Twitter as some they that want only one kind of moderation and control over digital square. I think that some people want what they understand to be misinformation off the platform because the misinformation is used in a hurtful way. E.g. gay people are pedophiles, so fill the feeds of gay people on Twitter with vitriol. I think that some people want misinformation off the platform because of the natural knee-jerk "someone is WRONG on the internet!". I don't think there's some nebulous they who consciously considers the narrative of social media as something to control. I think it's just very hard to remove bad actors in a non-centralized-tyrannical way. And I think leaving to a decentralized platform isn't a hurdle because of some weird nebulous they who want power over everything. I think it's just less intuitive. I'm a mastodon user and I think "twitter but with decentralized spaces" can be super confusing to someone who is familiar with the centralized space. Many friends who have tried to move to mastodon to enter a community I'm in have accidentally signed up on other servers by accident.

stale2002 4y ago
> to describe literally everybody Fortunately I am not doing that, and obviously instead describing general trends. Does that clear everything up, not that I have clarified that I am not making the stupid argument of describing literally every person, with no exceptions, and I am instead making the much more reasonable argument, of generally describing overall trends? > because the misinformation is used in a hurtful way. But they still want it removed regardless. So everything I said still applies, because the motivation for why they want it removed, does not change the fact that they do want it removed. And because they do want it removed, moving to a decentralized platform undermines this goal, because it is no longer possible for a centralized platform to remove it from the users who choose to keep watching it. > there's some nebulous they Well the "they" in this case would describe everyone who wants "misinformation", or "bad" content removed from the internet. For those people, my point applies. > I think it's just very hard to remove bad actors in a non-centralized-tyrannical way. So then you agree with me all along that decentralized platforms are harder to have content removed from. Yeah thats what I said. > they who want power over everything. I didn't say they wanted power. I said that they wanted content removed. So yes, to those people, who want content removed, a decentralized platform is a hurdle, because decentralization makes it more difficult to have content removed, which you already agreed is the case.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I suspect the reason why they think that leaving censored platforms is useful for them is that everybody apes the black civil rights struggle in the US whenever they have any political disagreement, and it feels like a boycott. They just don't remember that the reason boycotts work is because they do economic damage, and instead think that there's some other magical effect that will cause Twitter et. al. to shut up shop after they leave (the most commonly cited is that "it will turn into 4chan and everybody else will leave.") But not only would social networks not turn into 4chan if they reverted to pre-2020 moderation policies, but 4chan has been around for 20 years. If you want to keep people from talking to each other, starving them of your presence is not going to be the way to do it.
  - 4y ago

ljw1001 4y ago

Aside from some mistakes, twitter already erred on the side of no moderation: when did they ban trump?. What people don’t like is the idea of the world’s richest child turning it into Hate Central and a megaphone for Putin. That said, his solution has only the advantage that in a decentralized world, it’s harder for a motivated bad actor to have a global impact. Ultimately decentralization is a techno attempt to fix a political problem. It doesn’t work

briantakita 4y ago
> Hate Central and a megaphone for Putin That doesn't sound objective at all & a diminishing number of people subscribe to that narrative. > it’s harder for a motivated bad actor to have a global impact Most of the world (most of Eurasia, the Global South, & many in the West) consider the current hegemonic power as the "motivated bad actor"...and the actions/reactions of the hegemonic power only prove their point. Soon the hegemonic power will no longer be in charge. As the hegemon loses influence, those who were once not inclined to speak about the situation will start talking about it...which is what we are seeing right now. The hegemon will want to cling to it's power by suppressing the speech of those who say things that undermine the hegemon's position...

pessimizer 4y ago

I'm in your same camp, absolutely pro-decentralization and anti-Twitter/corporate social networking. But the fact is that what people are complaining about when it comes to Twitter moderation is not that they will see objectionable opinions, but that the people who have objectionable opinions are able to speak anywhere, even to each other. Decentralization will not silence people with objectionable opinions (assuming someone like a Musk allows more range of opinion on Twitter), so it's not a solution to the problems of the pro-political-moderation camp, it's the opposite of one. The way you censor opinions (as a government) is to encourage more centralization - and by threatening to pick a different favorite if the right opinions aren't censored. It's an end-run around prior restraint.

haunter 4y ago
>But the fact is that what people are complaining about when it comes to Twitter moderation is not that they will see objectionable opinions, but that the people who have objectionable opinions are able to speak anywhere, even to each other. I'm also baffeld by this but that's one of the biggest selling point of Mastodon apparently. Everyone deserves their own safe space (except those who we don't like) so just make multiple little echo chambers.
- izacus 4y ago
  Living in echo chambers is what society is. Family groups, friend groups, social groups - the choosing who you talk to, who you spend time with, what you listen to is basic freedom. It's what makes people happy. Social Media is one of the first antipatterns here, showing down interactions with hated people down everyones throats. Basically, every person needs to constantly, every day suffer their annoying uncle at thanksgiving. No wonder it's causing mental health issues.

mschuster91 4y ago

> They want the Twitter team to be engaging in centralized moderation, and control who or who does not have access to the "digital square". Because that is just how an "analog square" works: shout out the N-word in a public place in any large city and you will face consequences for that. Either by police or by anyone else hearing you. "Analog" society keeps itself relatively clean, there is no reason why the "digital" society should allow racism and other forms of hate.

stale2002 4y ago
> Because that is just how an "analog square" works There are actually laws that force anolog public squares, even private owned ones, to allow people to do things like protest on their property. You should check out the court case, pruneyard. It was about a california law, that forces private malls to allow people to engage in political space on their property. As in, the private property owner, was prevented by law from removing the protestors from their analog square.
- ghaff 4y ago
  See also National socialist party of America vs. village of Skokie SCOTUS case and related cases.
pessimizer 4y ago
> shout out the N-word in a public place in any large city and you will face consequences for that. Either by police or by anyone else hearing you. This is not true.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]