5 ms·

The solution is already predicted by scifi. We will start building new sub-internets with stricter, formalised, rules to reduce spam and noise. The outside inte

The solution is already predicted by scifi. We will start building new sub-internets with stricter, formalised, rules to reduce spam and noise. The outside internet will become the wild, noisy internet where few people reside. It's like in Cyberpunk 2077 where there is the "wall" that keeps all the AI out from the mainstream internet.

jonathanstrange 4y ago
I've been thinking for a while about writing another network on top of IP with decentralized DNS (dealing with domain names similarly to how SSH deals with public keys), make it open-source, free, with a one-click installer, and strictly prohibit any commercial activity on it (no ads, no acting on behalf of a company) or at least make commercial activities selectively opt-in for the end user. The same could be done for bots. Some of the technical aspect are already solved by others but the problem is that such a project would need some larger organizational support with lawyers in order to make the EULA enforceable. In other words, it's more of a social than a technical issue.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  I don’t think an EULA will stop bots, spam and scams. And without commercial buy in, I can’t see why anyone apart from computer geeks and scammers would want to use it. The first question your average users would ask is “why isn’t $SHOP on there”. Much as I dislike the modern web, it’s what the people have chosen in exchange for free services (like email) and convenience (like online shopping).
  - jonathanstrange 4y ago
    I don't care at all about average users, this network would be an alternative on top of what we have and can be as elitist as the small user group wants. The difficult part is having the power to sue organizations who violate the EULA (a social and financial problem) and getting a decentralized banning system to work (a very tricky technical, distributed social choice problem).
    - hnlmorg 4y ago
      We already have a few options in that domain. ipfs, onion sites (Tor). And to repeat my earlier point, an EULA isn’t going to keep your vision clean. Malicious actors aren’t going to give a hoot about any EULA. And any business that might take an EULA seriously would simply choose not to use such a minority platform anyway. Also if this “EULA” is targeting how companies use your platform, then it’s not an EULA. What you’re talking about is a different type of contractual agreement.
jaggederest 4y ago
> new sub-internets with stricter, formalised, rules to reduce spam and noise. I'm not sure more, better rule are going to stop a rule engine from participating. If anything, formalized rules merely makes it easier to train the machine learning system du jour to follow them. My modest proposal is to go the other direction - fill the entire internet with garbage data so that the generative models trained on it become useless. Clearly there's nothing that could go wrong with this plan.
- qsort 4y ago
  Not rules as in "match this regular expression", rules as in "if I don't know you, you can't join", BBS-style. Which is a bit unfortunate but also definitely what's going to happen. The masses are still on mainstream platforms, but more and more people are nauseated by the instagrams of this world. Sooner or later some group will realize it becomes necessary to dissolve the bands which have connected them with another, and you'll have a formal split.
  - indigochill 4y ago
    I don't really agree it's unfortunate. I think the "throw everyone into the same pot" has been an unfortunate side effect of the commercializing of communication. BBSes and forums were allowed to grow organically. They weren't for everyone, but anyone who wanted to be a good-faith participant in the conversation was generally welcomed, while baddies were moderated out by moderators who were actually empowered. Some would say over-empowered (there was plenty of drama about moderators having biases and what-not) but then communities could split without people necessarily feeling like they had just been excommunicated from a global forum like Facebook or Twitter. In short, I think people are wired to do better in smaller groups and I welcome this balkanization, albeit with the caveat that the communities can interconnect and grow/shrink/die/emerge organically to suit the needs of the people within them instead of commercial investors.
    - qsort 4y ago
      I'm saying 'unfortunate' because the open internet has some beautiful corners. There is some good in the world, and it's worth fighting for[0]. But on the other hand it's hard to deny that the mainstream internet is getting worse and worse. I grew up with the internet as my nanny, but I'm moving closer and closer to the idea that smaller groups focused on specific interests really do provide better experiences. Perhaps it was never meant to be, and the sweet spot is just living your life completely offline and using the Internet for Wikipedia and Whatsapp. [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444411-it-s-like-in-the-great-stories-mr-frodo-the-ones https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444411-it-s-like-in-the-gr...
marginalia_nu 4y ago
Gemini Protocol?
- bmacho 4y ago
  I only can imagine that banks, telecoms (and states) verify that you are a real person. Maybe we can have some organizations that disconnect your accounts from your identity. Maybe not, and everyone has to use their real identity. In the times of chatGPT there will be no other way to distinguish real people from bots. Like how facebook or github account depend on your phone number, or free trials depend on your credit card number.

jonathanstrange 4y ago

I've been thinking for a while about writing another network on top of IP with decentralized DNS (dealing with domain names similarly to how SSH deals with public keys), make it open-source, free, with a one-click installer, and strictly prohibit any commercial activity on it (no ads, no acting on behalf of a company) or at least make commercial activities selectively opt-in for the end user. The same could be done for bots. Some of the technical aspect are already solved by others but the problem is that such a project would need some larger organizational support with lawyers in order to make the EULA enforceable. In other words, it's more of a social than a technical issue.

hnlmorg 4y ago
I don’t think an EULA will stop bots, spam and scams. And without commercial buy in, I can’t see why anyone apart from computer geeks and scammers would want to use it. The first question your average users would ask is “why isn’t $SHOP on there”. Much as I dislike the modern web, it’s what the people have chosen in exchange for free services (like email) and convenience (like online shopping).
- jonathanstrange 4y ago
  I don't care at all about average users, this network would be an alternative on top of what we have and can be as elitist as the small user group wants. The difficult part is having the power to sue organizations who violate the EULA (a social and financial problem) and getting a decentralized banning system to work (a very tricky technical, distributed social choice problem).
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    We already have a few options in that domain. ipfs, onion sites (Tor). And to repeat my earlier point, an EULA isn’t going to keep your vision clean. Malicious actors aren’t going to give a hoot about any EULA. And any business that might take an EULA seriously would simply choose not to use such a minority platform anyway. Also if this “EULA” is targeting how companies use your platform, then it’s not an EULA. What you’re talking about is a different type of contractual agreement.

jaggederest 4y ago

> new sub-internets with stricter, formalised, rules to reduce spam and noise. I'm not sure more, better rule are going to stop a rule engine from participating. If anything, formalized rules merely makes it easier to train the machine learning system du jour to follow them. My modest proposal is to go the other direction - fill the entire internet with garbage data so that the generative models trained on it become useless. Clearly there's nothing that could go wrong with this plan.

qsort 4y ago
Not rules as in "match this regular expression", rules as in "if I don't know you, you can't join", BBS-style. Which is a bit unfortunate but also definitely what's going to happen. The masses are still on mainstream platforms, but more and more people are nauseated by the instagrams of this world. Sooner or later some group will realize it becomes necessary to dissolve the bands which have connected them with another, and you'll have a formal split.
- indigochill 4y ago
  I don't really agree it's unfortunate. I think the "throw everyone into the same pot" has been an unfortunate side effect of the commercializing of communication. BBSes and forums were allowed to grow organically. They weren't for everyone, but anyone who wanted to be a good-faith participant in the conversation was generally welcomed, while baddies were moderated out by moderators who were actually empowered. Some would say over-empowered (there was plenty of drama about moderators having biases and what-not) but then communities could split without people necessarily feeling like they had just been excommunicated from a global forum like Facebook or Twitter. In short, I think people are wired to do better in smaller groups and I welcome this balkanization, albeit with the caveat that the communities can interconnect and grow/shrink/die/emerge organically to suit the needs of the people within them instead of commercial investors.
  - qsort 4y ago
    I'm saying 'unfortunate' because the open internet has some beautiful corners. There is some good in the world, and it's worth fighting for[0]. But on the other hand it's hard to deny that the mainstream internet is getting worse and worse. I grew up with the internet as my nanny, but I'm moving closer and closer to the idea that smaller groups focused on specific interests really do provide better experiences. Perhaps it was never meant to be, and the sweet spot is just living your life completely offline and using the Internet for Wikipedia and Whatsapp. [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444411-it-s-like-in-the-great-stories-mr-frodo-the-ones https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444411-it-s-like-in-the-gr...

marginalia_nu 4y ago

Gemini Protocol?

bmacho 4y ago
I only can imagine that banks, telecoms (and states) verify that you are a real person. Maybe we can have some organizations that disconnect your accounts from your identity. Maybe not, and everyone has to use their real identity. In the times of chatGPT there will be no other way to distinguish real people from bots. Like how facebook or github account depend on your phone number, or free trials depend on your credit card number.