5 ms·

I think there are two interesting sides to this here: First is that essentially a key part of this strategy is ideological, not pragmatic. Centralization came o

I think there are two interesting sides to this here: First is that essentially a key part of this strategy is ideological, not pragmatic. Centralization came out of pragmatism, not ideology. It seems hard for me to believe that deliberately choosing the less efficient solution is a good idea for a start up. The second is that we seem to be seeing a lot of VC brain here. By that I mean, I can scream at a VC "OMG THERE'S A TRUCK COMING AT YOU AT 100MPH" and the VC will respond "Well what we need to do is look at how the concept of a truck is cha-" before becoming a fine pink mist. I'm not impressed by people who can't answer basic questions about their product. I know Jack will hate to actually address this, but: how do you balance speech, censorship and moderation? I get we can wax lyrical about freedom of speech, but how are you actually going to address thousands of people shouting the N word at your users? And if your answer is "It's decentralized, it's down to X,Y,X people" then I have to point out, you've just outsourced the most difficult differentiator of a social media startup.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
If the speech is illegal in whatever jurisdictions apply, then remove it; otherwise, it should stay. Yes, even trolling and slurs. If a platform emulating the public square goes beyond what is legal, it ceases to be a neutral platform and inevitably becomes a vehicle for propaganda. I realize that means propaganda could be spread by the users, but I'd rather than than the platform and users spreading it. The real question here is defining "public square" legally.
- labster 4y ago
  Spam is 100% legal in all jurisdictions, so your legal free speech plan sounds like a total hellscape.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Probably not remotely practical, but I wonder what an online equivalent to the "do not call" list would look like.
    - nullc 4y ago
      After it went through congress? Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
    - lob_it 4y ago
      Domestic network protocols make SPAM, sim jacking (sim swapping, sim hacking), malware and ransomeware limited to TCP/IP (aka the Internet). Mobile phones utilize IP networks (VoLTE or voice over data networks), so dialtone 2.0 becomes an easy option with domestic network protocols as well. ESIM is about to change dynamics as well, so any use of a phone number/SMS/2FA for identity verification is rendered null with the current system in place. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/10/sim-swap-scams-how-protect-yourself https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/10/sim-swap-sc... Domestic networking protocols and dialtone 2.0 easily address most ransomware, malware, SPAM, etc much easier than trying to police 3rd world countries. That severe limitation of regulating 3rd world countries is also the same argument with climate change. The can continue to regulate their own soverign borders.
  - youguyssuck 4y ago
    There are definitely laws against spam
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Are there laws against spam that aren't narrowly defined as email or phone spam? I'm not aware of laws against forum/wiki/social media spam. The US postal service is largely spam-funded, as is Canada Post.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > are definitely laws against spam Almost none of them in competent jurisdictions even attempt to define spam with an eye towards balancing against free speech.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      What laws are there against posting twitter spam?
  - vntok 4y ago
    No it certainly is not. Here's the Canadian jurisdiction against SPAM: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-1.6/index.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-1.6/index.html > An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act (S.C. 2010, c. 23) > Unsolicited electronic messages 6 (1) It is prohibited to send or cause or permit to be sent to an electronic address a commercial electronic message unless > (a) the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied; and > (b) the message complies with subsection (2). And here's the European jurisdiction against SPAM: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... > Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) > Unsolicited communications 1. The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      This wouldn't apply to spam you would read in a public forum. This act is about unwanted messages sent to you. Parent poster is still correct
- nullc 4y ago
  Bleh, I find your position is boring because it's so easily shown to be unworkable. Imagine there have a platform run as you suggest and I don't like what you're saying on it: I flood you and anyone that supports you with not-quite-illegal abuse, misinformation, non-sense, spam, false flag support from people with deplorable views. Copy-cats of you that take your positions but weakly argued or with a touch of added genocide. At the end of the day almost no one will see what you wrote, and most of those that do will think you're probably a kook with deplorable views (since that's what you're surrounded with). Censorship that works by outright blocking speech is a largely outmoded concept in a world where communications networks connect every one to everyone else. In such a world flooding with noise that undermines the conversations people want to have and undermines their willingness to attempt the conversations is a more effective tool to censor communications. Outright blocking isn't very effective, unless it's done secretly, because people will route around it and plugging leaks is extremely hard (requiring essentially AI complete filtering). As such, censorship is now essentially its own opposite. This means there really are no magical silver bullets. We ought to stop pretending that private spaces are public squares though-- though this is a problem offline too: with eminent domain being used to seize land and create giant privately owned open air shopping malls in many places... but at least offline doesn't have the same scaling properties that make it so easy to censor by inundating with noise.
  - potatototoo99 4y ago
    There are quite a few websites with little or no moderation working just fine, like 4chan. But I honestly don't understand this whole argument. Twitter is a social network, you just need to only receive messages from your network or "friends of a friend". You can't have both a global network and get offended given the multitude of opinions and laws in the world. The problem seems to be less that people are offended by something, but that some people don't want other people to even be exposed to some thoughts. Some paternalistic higher-than-though attitude.
    - ithkuil 4y ago
      > There are quite a few websites with little or no moderation working just fine, like 4chan. Even taking at face value what you just said, it doesn't logically follow that if having one or more places like 4chan is just fine, having online venues be like 4chan would be just fine as well.
- JoeJonathan 4y ago
  Elon?
- stovenctl 4y ago
  Laws aren't static. Also, when someone thinks they've been violated, it takes a lot of time and humans to settle it. It's already hard enough to keep up with the laws in software.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> Centralization came out of pragmatism Sort of? Centralization is more profitable and easier than building new open internet protocols and formats.
- saghm 4y ago
  Those are certainly more pragmatic than ideological concerns, which is the point GP was making.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    And I agree. I just think monetization is the larger factor.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Reliable servers ain't free, at least that's what I think one of the larger issues is.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        No centralization, no server.
        pixl97 4y ago
        "This, and other things CEOs say while smoking crack." Computer code still runs on CPUs and not the aether. If its accepting connections from other computers it is the server in the client/server model. If it's on your desktop, it just typically means it doesn't have ECC memory and a battery backup dropping the reliability even further. Decentralized architectures have all kinds of fun and complicated failure modes, and especially for consumer use, high speed and low latency typically are not their strong points.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
markstos 4y ago
> how do you balance speech, censorship and moderation? Decentralization does help a lot here. The X, Y and Z server owners don’t have to agree or coordinate. The fact that they will disagree on their policies is part of the answer. There won’t be a one-size-fits-all policy. Different servers will try different things and ideas will be shared about what works and what doesn’t. Z server can choose to allow saying mean things and X and Y server can block and ignore posts from Z. Some servers may have a political bias one way or the other and individuals can choose which to join and pay attention to.
- cykros 4y ago
  Sounds like it'd just be another Mastodon -- and heck, likely get federated (or in most cases, not federated...the whole issue with Mastodon) in with the rest. Back in the Usenet days we had killfiles to do user based filtering -- everything would get sent out, and users would decide what sort of content they didn't want to see. Obviously it was harder back then to just spin up a new identity, so it's not simply a matter of taking the old tech and slapping it on the new, but the approach avoided the splinter effect we get trying to decide for users what will and won't be available to them (whether they like it or not). Snowden actually tweeted a week or two about how trivial this would be to implement on Twitter if they ever actually wanted to (with a working one liner to prove it). The issue thus far has usually been that advertising funded social media THRIVES on the controversy, and only moderates what it needs to to keep advertisers happy. They don't WANT you to make it a pleasant experience, because controversy and fights get more ad views. Perhaps at some point bandwidth becomes cheap enough that we can cut back on how much of a role advertisers play in steering the ship. Until then I don't see a great solution to any of this.
cma 4y ago
> It seems hard for me to believe that deliberately choosing the less efficient solution is a good idea for a start up. Many crypto scam startups have made bank with this less efficient strategy. Have you seen all the companies selling banks on internal proof of work blockchains and stuff?
dqpb 4y ago
As someone who is frequently rated limited on HN and occasionally scolded by HNs beloved religion-apologist moderator, I find decentralization to be not only pragmatic but truly essential for the next generation of social platforms.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

If the speech is illegal in whatever jurisdictions apply, then remove it; otherwise, it should stay. Yes, even trolling and slurs. If a platform emulating the public square goes beyond what is legal, it ceases to be a neutral platform and inevitably becomes a vehicle for propaganda. I realize that means propaganda could be spread by the users, but I'd rather than than the platform and users spreading it. The real question here is defining "public square" legally.

labster 4y ago
Spam is 100% legal in all jurisdictions, so your legal free speech plan sounds like a total hellscape.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Probably not remotely practical, but I wonder what an online equivalent to the "do not call" list would look like.
  - nullc 4y ago
    After it went through congress? Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
  - lob_it 4y ago
    Domestic network protocols make SPAM, sim jacking (sim swapping, sim hacking), malware and ransomeware limited to TCP/IP (aka the Internet). Mobile phones utilize IP networks (VoLTE or voice over data networks), so dialtone 2.0 becomes an easy option with domestic network protocols as well. ESIM is about to change dynamics as well, so any use of a phone number/SMS/2FA for identity verification is rendered null with the current system in place. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/10/sim-swap-scams-how-protect-yourself https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/10/sim-swap-sc... Domestic networking protocols and dialtone 2.0 easily address most ransomware, malware, SPAM, etc much easier than trying to police 3rd world countries. That severe limitation of regulating 3rd world countries is also the same argument with climate change. The can continue to regulate their own soverign borders.
- youguyssuck 4y ago
  There are definitely laws against spam
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Are there laws against spam that aren't narrowly defined as email or phone spam? I'm not aware of laws against forum/wiki/social media spam. The US postal service is largely spam-funded, as is Canada Post.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > are definitely laws against spam Almost none of them in competent jurisdictions even attempt to define spam with an eye towards balancing against free speech.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    What laws are there against posting twitter spam?
- vntok 4y ago
  No it certainly is not. Here's the Canadian jurisdiction against SPAM: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-1.6/index.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-1.6/index.html > An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act (S.C. 2010, c. 23) > Unsolicited electronic messages 6 (1) It is prohibited to send or cause or permit to be sent to an electronic address a commercial electronic message unless > (a) the person to whom the message is sent has consented to receiving it, whether the consent is express or implied; and > (b) the message complies with subsection (2). And here's the European jurisdiction against SPAM: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0058 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... > Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) > Unsolicited communications 1. The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines (fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    This wouldn't apply to spam you would read in a public forum. This act is about unwanted messages sent to you. Parent poster is still correct
nullc 4y ago
Bleh, I find your position is boring because it's so easily shown to be unworkable. Imagine there have a platform run as you suggest and I don't like what you're saying on it: I flood you and anyone that supports you with not-quite-illegal abuse, misinformation, non-sense, spam, false flag support from people with deplorable views. Copy-cats of you that take your positions but weakly argued or with a touch of added genocide. At the end of the day almost no one will see what you wrote, and most of those that do will think you're probably a kook with deplorable views (since that's what you're surrounded with). Censorship that works by outright blocking speech is a largely outmoded concept in a world where communications networks connect every one to everyone else. In such a world flooding with noise that undermines the conversations people want to have and undermines their willingness to attempt the conversations is a more effective tool to censor communications. Outright blocking isn't very effective, unless it's done secretly, because people will route around it and plugging leaks is extremely hard (requiring essentially AI complete filtering). As such, censorship is now essentially its own opposite. This means there really are no magical silver bullets. We ought to stop pretending that private spaces are public squares though-- though this is a problem offline too: with eminent domain being used to seize land and create giant privately owned open air shopping malls in many places... but at least offline doesn't have the same scaling properties that make it so easy to censor by inundating with noise.
- potatototoo99 4y ago
  There are quite a few websites with little or no moderation working just fine, like 4chan. But I honestly don't understand this whole argument. Twitter is a social network, you just need to only receive messages from your network or "friends of a friend". You can't have both a global network and get offended given the multitude of opinions and laws in the world. The problem seems to be less that people are offended by something, but that some people don't want other people to even be exposed to some thoughts. Some paternalistic higher-than-though attitude.
  - ithkuil 4y ago
    > There are quite a few websites with little or no moderation working just fine, like 4chan. Even taking at face value what you just said, it doesn't logically follow that if having one or more places like 4chan is just fine, having online venues be like 4chan would be just fine as well.
JoeJonathan 4y ago
Elon?
stovenctl 4y ago
Laws aren't static. Also, when someone thinks they've been violated, it takes a lot of time and humans to settle it. It's already hard enough to keep up with the laws in software.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> Centralization came out of pragmatism Sort of? Centralization is more profitable and easier than building new open internet protocols and formats.

saghm 4y ago
Those are certainly more pragmatic than ideological concerns, which is the point GP was making.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  And I agree. I just think monetization is the larger factor.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Reliable servers ain't free, at least that's what I think one of the larger issues is.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      No centralization, no server.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        "This, and other things CEOs say while smoking crack." Computer code still runs on CPUs and not the aether. If its accepting connections from other computers it is the server in the client/server model. If it's on your desktop, it just typically means it doesn't have ECC memory and a battery backup dropping the reliability even further. Decentralized architectures have all kinds of fun and complicated failure modes, and especially for consumer use, high speed and low latency typically are not their strong points.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

markstos 4y ago

> how do you balance speech, censorship and moderation? Decentralization does help a lot here. The X, Y and Z server owners don’t have to agree or coordinate. The fact that they will disagree on their policies is part of the answer. There won’t be a one-size-fits-all policy. Different servers will try different things and ideas will be shared about what works and what doesn’t. Z server can choose to allow saying mean things and X and Y server can block and ignore posts from Z. Some servers may have a political bias one way or the other and individuals can choose which to join and pay attention to.

cykros 4y ago
Sounds like it'd just be another Mastodon -- and heck, likely get federated (or in most cases, not federated...the whole issue with Mastodon) in with the rest. Back in the Usenet days we had killfiles to do user based filtering -- everything would get sent out, and users would decide what sort of content they didn't want to see. Obviously it was harder back then to just spin up a new identity, so it's not simply a matter of taking the old tech and slapping it on the new, but the approach avoided the splinter effect we get trying to decide for users what will and won't be available to them (whether they like it or not). Snowden actually tweeted a week or two about how trivial this would be to implement on Twitter if they ever actually wanted to (with a working one liner to prove it). The issue thus far has usually been that advertising funded social media THRIVES on the controversy, and only moderates what it needs to to keep advertisers happy. They don't WANT you to make it a pleasant experience, because controversy and fights get more ad views. Perhaps at some point bandwidth becomes cheap enough that we can cut back on how much of a role advertisers play in steering the ship. Until then I don't see a great solution to any of this.

cma 4y ago

> It seems hard for me to believe that deliberately choosing the less efficient solution is a good idea for a start up. Many crypto scam startups have made bank with this less efficient strategy. Have you seen all the companies selling banks on internal proof of work blockchains and stuff?

dqpb 4y ago

As someone who is frequently rated limited on HN and occasionally scolded by HNs beloved religion-apologist moderator, I find decentralization to be not only pragmatic but truly essential for the next generation of social platforms.