4 ms·

why would a protocol do the task of a state? if it's illegal the person C can go to the police

pjc50 4y ago
Jack is trying to design it specifically to prevent the state being able to intervene at all. Also, which state? These things may be international.
- nathias 4y ago
  why would the state intervene with the protocol? the state interacts with their citizens, and should leave everyone else alone (any state)
  - consumer451 4y ago
    So in Jack's model, as far as I understand it, a bad actor could dox and post a bounty on someone's life, lose or destroy their key, and no one in the world could delete or block this information? Do I have that scenario correct? Counterpoint/question: Isn't this already all possible on TOR? Would ease of access make Jack's proposal more dangerous?
    - nathias 4y ago
      I think Jack's model it would decrease the reach of illegal content, but it would still be accessible if you had a direct link.
      - krapp 4y ago
        Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms - but algorithms in this context are designed to maximize engagement, which means maximizing the reach of "illegal" content, because controversy leads engagement. "algorithmic moderation" is a contradiction in terms, and counter to the incentives of social media. Although strictly illegal content is a red herring since not even most "free speech" platforms (not on the dark web) are willing to risk jail time for hosting content that explicitly breaks the law - certainly not Reddit. What we're really talking about is technically legal but still harmful content, although at the extreme I guess the free speech extremist position has to allow illegal content as well.
        consumer451 4y ago
        > Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms This is super hand wavy on his part. [0] So algorithms just rise from the virgin snow having solved human philosophy and sorted all social norms? No humans were involved in the making of these algorithms? It's really hard to take a proposal seriously when it contains something like that. Please someone explain to me how I can NOT read it as: "Responsibility for the platform I created? No, no, I only chose the team who coded it and I only oversaw the creation of this magic algo. That absolves me of everything!" [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/
        nathias 4y ago
        I find this type of harm reduction discourse really weasely, I imagine you have no problem with www and email, that are also such free sepeech exteremes that allow harmful content.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
Why would the protocol go out of its way to do the job of a person whose aim is to usurp any of these powers? It takes very little imagination to see what could happen if you provide Jack’s proposed platform, every single coup in the world is precedent.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> if it's illegal the person C can go to the police Just to be clear - as long as they stay away from outright illegal content, A and B can cyber-bully C? Because there's a whole swathe of behaviours that can make someone's life a misery without crossing into illegality...
- erlich 4y ago
  How and who decides if its actually cyber-bullying and whether C was bullying A and B?

Jack is trying to design it specifically to prevent the state being able to intervene at all. Also, which state? These things may be international.

nathias 4y ago
why would the state intervene with the protocol? the state interacts with their citizens, and should leave everyone else alone (any state)
- consumer451 4y ago
  So in Jack's model, as far as I understand it, a bad actor could dox and post a bounty on someone's life, lose or destroy their key, and no one in the world could delete or block this information? Do I have that scenario correct? Counterpoint/question: Isn't this already all possible on TOR? Would ease of access make Jack's proposal more dangerous?
  - nathias 4y ago
    I think Jack's model it would decrease the reach of illegal content, but it would still be accessible if you had a direct link.
    - krapp 4y ago
      Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms - but algorithms in this context are designed to maximize engagement, which means maximizing the reach of "illegal" content, because controversy leads engagement. "algorithmic moderation" is a contradiction in terms, and counter to the incentives of social media. Although strictly illegal content is a red herring since not even most "free speech" platforms (not on the dark web) are willing to risk jail time for hosting content that explicitly breaks the law - certainly not Reddit. What we're really talking about is technically legal but still harmful content, although at the extreme I guess the free speech extremist position has to allow illegal content as well.
      - consumer451 4y ago
        > Jack's model is that moderation should only occur due to algorithms This is super hand wavy on his part. [0] So algorithms just rise from the virgin snow having solved human philosophy and sorted all social norms? No humans were involved in the making of these algorithms? It's really hard to take a proposal seriously when it contains something like that. Please someone explain to me how I can NOT read it as: "Responsibility for the platform I created? No, no, I only chose the team who coded it and I only oversaw the creation of this magic algo. That absolves me of everything!" [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/restofthefuckingowl/
      - nathias 4y ago
        I find this type of harm reduction discourse really weasely, I imagine you have no problem with www and email, that are also such free sepeech exteremes that allow harmful content.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

Why would the protocol go out of its way to do the job of a person whose aim is to usurp any of these powers? It takes very little imagination to see what could happen if you provide Jack’s proposed platform, every single coup in the world is precedent.

zimpenfish 4y ago

> if it's illegal the person C can go to the police Just to be clear - as long as they stay away from outright illegal content, A and B can cyber-bully C? Because there's a whole swathe of behaviours that can make someone's life a misery without crossing into illegality...

erlich 4y ago
How and who decides if its actually cyber-bullying and whether C was bullying A and B?