5 ms·

Freedom of reach IS freedom of speech

20 points by leephillips 4y ago

aredox 4y ago
This whole argument is moot because it doesn't acknowledge the very obvious elephant in the room: the spam problem.
- leephillips 4y ago
  The article mentions the spam problem repeatedly. It’s one of the main threads.
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    Does it? It mentions advertising a bit, and I think I could get to what the authors take would be, but it didn’t mention spam as far as I can tell
    - leephillips 4y ago
      The word “spam” occurs multiple times. And he discusses the problem of unsolicited messaging in various contexts, without always using the word. Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
      - space_fountain 4y ago
        Hum, so I did read the entire article, probably should have searched the text for spam though. It still doesn’t feel like heavy engagement to me though. Probably why it slipped my mind: 1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
      - aredox 4y ago
        Sorry that you take it like that. I tried to delete my initial comment because I felt it was too curt and I didn't have time then to expand. Yes, spam is quoted several times in the initial article, but it is not "acknowledged" as the hard problem it is, and dismissed as an excuse - which it isn't. I did read the links and it doesn't help, even Doctorow 's argument (which is exactly about how difficult spam fighting is and how it devolves into centralisation and privilege).
- bitwize 4y ago
  The elephant in the room is the fascist problem. Before Musk, one of the metrics by which Twitter would evaluate whether to ban someone was: how many trans people will die if we allow this person to keep tweeting? (A competing metric was, regrettably, how big a PR black eye will the far right give us if we ban them, which led to people being banned more slowly than maybe they should have.) It's a social benefit to muzzle fascists. Fascist ideology plays to our deepest, most visceral hatreds and fears, which means it spreads like wildfire. "A lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" and all that. And when considering whether American standards of "free speech" are universally applicable, do bear in mind that the USA is a shithole banana republic with a far worse fascist problem than most of the rest of the OECD.
  - lilboiluvr69 4y ago
    If everyday citizens cannot be trusted to tell truth from fiction, or to choose democracy over fascism, how can they be trusted to elect their rulers? Why believe in democracy at all? And while I believe wealth disparity, healthcare, and fascism are all real, sadly neglected problems in the United States, I would strongly caution you against hyperbolic criticisms. You should reflect on what you think of when you think 'banana republic', and in what ways day to day life for the average citizen of the United States are comparable to say, the average citizen of Zambia.
    - bitwize 4y ago
      When I think of "banana republic" I think of a puppet government installed by corporations to ensure the corporations' profitability -- much like the United Fruit Company did to Honduras and Guatemala, hence the name. The USA has exactly this kind of government: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
      - lilboiluvr69 4y ago
        I am familiar with the research cited in that article. I am also familiar with the United States' prolonged history of foreign interference and human rights abuse. But in the United States I can openly kiss my same-sex husband in public. In Zambia I would be arrested. The average citizen of the United States still enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Sanitary conditions. High wealth (compared to the rest of the world). Human rights. I find comparisons to banana republics to be hyperbole which ultimately distracts from your arguments.
theCrowing 4y ago
everyone is so entitled nowadays.
- warning26 4y ago
  My favorite one is "YouTube is censoring me because they demonetized my video!" Okay, person, so now it's censorship if YouTube broadcasts and hosts your content for free, but fails to give you money for the privilege of doing so?
  - jhbadger 4y ago
    You make it sound as if YouTube is hosting videos out of their good will. They are doing to make money for themselves, which they do, whether or not (for often very arbitrary reasons) decide to demonetize a video and stop the creators from getting any of it.
    - mattnewton 4y ago
      If a video is demonetized it’s because YouTube doesn’t think advertisers want to advertise on it. They aren’t making money directly off the video either.
  - tobbob 4y ago
    I've never heard anyone say that.
Proven 4y ago
afinlayson 4y ago
Great so now I have to follow all 200M people on Twitter? That’s going to be pretty noisy.
- barbariangrunge 4y ago
  That’s not really what the article is about
space_fountain 4y ago
Why does this article fail to praise the platforms that do provide non algorithmic feeds (YouTube and Twitter). If the point is more platforms should provide that experience isn’t that contradicted by the YouTube experience where the subscriptions are rarely used. I think the most interesting point is that maybe if similar investments had gone into tools to curate your own feed it would be of similar quality, but it’s hard to compete with quality and interest signals like people who watch the stuff I watched like this, and as soon as you add that signs you’ve at best built a standard evil recommendation engine with extra levers for the user to control and we all know customization is a great way to ballon the maintenance cost of a feature
- leephillips 4y ago
  His comments about Twitter suggest that he’s not too familiar with how to use it. It’s a simple matter to get the non-manipulated list of tweets, to get exactly what you ask for, which he claims is not on offer: https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/ https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
- hairofadog 4y ago
  Isn’t YouTube notorious for having one of the most insidious algorithmic feeds, both in terms of driving people to extremist content and serving disturbing content to kids?
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    YouTube has two feeds. A subscriptions feed which a pure chronological feed of people you follow and an algorithmic feed (home). The fact that people don’t use the subscriptions feed very much (and didn’t even when it was the default) is telling
    - hairofadog 4y ago
      Agree, but there’s also the question of what happens if you just let it go to the next video, which I believe is independent of the two things you mention and I think is a bigger part of the problem.
zug_zug 4y ago
This is so rambly that I can scarcely parse it. The title is also linkbait. The end though has some good questions so maybe a better way to approach this is to say what asks we'd like from a platform. Here's the contract I would like to see with platforms: - Ability to whitelist/follow people so that we get their legal messages, even if provably factually incorrect, (optionally with a caveat attached by the platform if it's say a known falsely labeled video that's a deliberate misinformation attempt) - Ability to blacklist any person or ad - All ads are marked as ads - Ability to blacklist subject matters from feeds, and ads - No entitlement of anybody to be put it any feed for non-subscribers - Ability to create ones own feed, to which others can subscribe
- leephillips 4y ago
  Twitter works exactly this way today, if you use lists and ignore your timeline. See my other comments for instructions.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
The article is not exactly about what some commenters think it is. These quotes summarize the thesis a little bit: > This is called the End-to-End (E2E) principle: a network is E2E if it lets anyone receive any message from anyone else, without a third party intervening. It's a straightforward idea, though the spam wars brought in an important modification: the message should be consensual (DoS attacks, spam, etc don't count). > The degradation of the internet into "five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of text from the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) meant the end of end-to-end. If you're a Youtuber, Tiktoker, tweeter, or Facebooker, the fact that someone explicitly subscribed to your feed does not mean that they will, in fact, see your feed.

20 points by leephillips 4y ago

aredox 4y ago

This whole argument is moot because it doesn't acknowledge the very obvious elephant in the room: the spam problem.

leephillips 4y ago
The article mentions the spam problem repeatedly. It’s one of the main threads.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Does it? It mentions advertising a bit, and I think I could get to what the authors take would be, but it didn’t mention spam as far as I can tell
  - leephillips 4y ago
    The word “spam” occurs multiple times. And he discusses the problem of unsolicited messaging in various contexts, without always using the word. Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
    - space_fountain 4y ago
      Hum, so I did read the entire article, probably should have searched the text for spam though. It still doesn’t feel like heavy engagement to me though. Probably why it slipped my mind: 1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
    - aredox 4y ago
      Sorry that you take it like that. I tried to delete my initial comment because I felt it was too curt and I didn't have time then to expand. Yes, spam is quoted several times in the initial article, but it is not "acknowledged" as the hard problem it is, and dismissed as an excuse - which it isn't. I did read the links and it doesn't help, even Doctorow 's argument (which is exactly about how difficult spam fighting is and how it devolves into centralisation and privilege).
bitwize 4y ago
The elephant in the room is the fascist problem. Before Musk, one of the metrics by which Twitter would evaluate whether to ban someone was: how many trans people will die if we allow this person to keep tweeting? (A competing metric was, regrettably, how big a PR black eye will the far right give us if we ban them, which led to people being banned more slowly than maybe they should have.) It's a social benefit to muzzle fascists. Fascist ideology plays to our deepest, most visceral hatreds and fears, which means it spreads like wildfire. "A lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" and all that. And when considering whether American standards of "free speech" are universally applicable, do bear in mind that the USA is a shithole banana republic with a far worse fascist problem than most of the rest of the OECD.
- lilboiluvr69 4y ago
  If everyday citizens cannot be trusted to tell truth from fiction, or to choose democracy over fascism, how can they be trusted to elect their rulers? Why believe in democracy at all? And while I believe wealth disparity, healthcare, and fascism are all real, sadly neglected problems in the United States, I would strongly caution you against hyperbolic criticisms. You should reflect on what you think of when you think 'banana republic', and in what ways day to day life for the average citizen of the United States are comparable to say, the average citizen of Zambia.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    When I think of "banana republic" I think of a puppet government installed by corporations to ensure the corporations' profitability -- much like the United Fruit Company did to Honduras and Guatemala, hence the name. The USA has exactly this kind of government: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
    - lilboiluvr69 4y ago
      I am familiar with the research cited in that article. I am also familiar with the United States' prolonged history of foreign interference and human rights abuse. But in the United States I can openly kiss my same-sex husband in public. In Zambia I would be arrested. The average citizen of the United States still enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Sanitary conditions. High wealth (compared to the rest of the world). Human rights. I find comparisons to banana republics to be hyperbole which ultimately distracts from your arguments.

theCrowing 4y ago

everyone is so entitled nowadays.

warning26 4y ago
My favorite one is "YouTube is censoring me because they demonetized my video!" Okay, person, so now it's censorship if YouTube broadcasts and hosts your content for free, but fails to give you money for the privilege of doing so?
- jhbadger 4y ago
  You make it sound as if YouTube is hosting videos out of their good will. They are doing to make money for themselves, which they do, whether or not (for often very arbitrary reasons) decide to demonetize a video and stop the creators from getting any of it.
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    If a video is demonetized it’s because YouTube doesn’t think advertisers want to advertise on it. They aren’t making money directly off the video either.
- tobbob 4y ago
  I've never heard anyone say that.

Proven 4y ago

afinlayson 4y ago

Great so now I have to follow all 200M people on Twitter? That’s going to be pretty noisy.

barbariangrunge 4y ago
That’s not really what the article is about

space_fountain 4y ago

Why does this article fail to praise the platforms that do provide non algorithmic feeds (YouTube and Twitter). If the point is more platforms should provide that experience isn’t that contradicted by the YouTube experience where the subscriptions are rarely used. I think the most interesting point is that maybe if similar investments had gone into tools to curate your own feed it would be of similar quality, but it’s hard to compete with quality and interest signals like people who watch the stuff I watched like this, and as soon as you add that signs you’ve at best built a standard evil recommendation engine with extra levers for the user to control and we all know customization is a great way to ballon the maintenance cost of a feature

leephillips 4y ago
His comments about Twitter suggest that he’s not too familiar with how to use it. It’s a simple matter to get the non-manipulated list of tweets, to get exactly what you ask for, which he claims is not on offer: https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/ https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
hairofadog 4y ago
Isn’t YouTube notorious for having one of the most insidious algorithmic feeds, both in terms of driving people to extremist content and serving disturbing content to kids?
- space_fountain 4y ago
  YouTube has two feeds. A subscriptions feed which a pure chronological feed of people you follow and an algorithmic feed (home). The fact that people don’t use the subscriptions feed very much (and didn’t even when it was the default) is telling
  - hairofadog 4y ago
    Agree, but there’s also the question of what happens if you just let it go to the next video, which I believe is independent of the two things you mention and I think is a bigger part of the problem.

zug_zug 4y ago

This is so rambly that I can scarcely parse it. The title is also linkbait. The end though has some good questions so maybe a better way to approach this is to say what asks we'd like from a platform. Here's the contract I would like to see with platforms: - Ability to whitelist/follow people so that we get their legal messages, even if provably factually incorrect, (optionally with a caveat attached by the platform if it's say a known falsely labeled video that's a deliberate misinformation attempt) - Ability to blacklist any person or ad - All ads are marked as ads - Ability to blacklist subject matters from feeds, and ads - No entitlement of anybody to be put it any feed for non-subscribers - Ability to create ones own feed, to which others can subscribe

leephillips 4y ago
Twitter works exactly this way today, if you use lists and ignore your timeline. See my other comments for instructions.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

The article is not exactly about what some commenters think it is. These quotes summarize the thesis a little bit: > This is called the End-to-End (E2E) principle: a network is E2E if it lets anyone receive any message from anyone else, without a third party intervening. It's a straightforward idea, though the spam wars brought in an important modification: the message should be consensual (DoS attacks, spam, etc don't count). > The degradation of the internet into "five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of text from the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) meant the end of end-to-end. If you're a Youtuber, Tiktoker, tweeter, or Facebooker, the fact that someone explicitly subscribed to your feed does not mean that they will, in fact, see your feed.