5 ms·

Decentralization doesn't mean much of anything on its own. There are "decentralized" setups that do moderation fairly well (e.g., Mastodon or most oldschool web

Decentralization doesn't mean much of anything on its own. There are "decentralized" setups that do moderation fairly well (e.g., Mastodon or most oldschool web forums, where there's ultimately someone accountable). This (Nostr), specifically [1], makes fun of such setups. To moderate any system, there must be affordances for moderation and someone(s) accountable to the users of the system. As far as I can tell, like most blockchain projects, the Nostr project has effectively stripped (nearly) all affordances for doing moderation. Given that the Nostr audience seems to overlap considerably with crypto enthusiasts, I think their stance is basically the same: no moderation, no "censorship", etc. Given that there's literally child porn stored on the Bitcoin blockchain right now, I don't think your argument holds that "decentralization" can just Jeff Goldblum it and "find a way" without explicit affordances / accountability. [1] https://nostr.com/comparisons/mastodon https://nostr.com/comparisons/mastodon

rglullis 3y ago
Nostr makes fun of the idea that you can have centralized moderation and moves it explicitly to the relays. It is up to the relay owner to determine what is allowed or not.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Which practically means unanimous agreement is needed among all relays in order to moderate anything. I also don't see what incentive / accountability relays face to remove content. So... I don't see that strategy being particularly effective. But hey! If more than a couple dozen people wind up actually using the thing, guess we'll find out!
  - rglullis 3y ago
    > Which practically means unanimous agreement is needed among all relays in order to moderate anything. No, it means that the people will tend to congregate around the relays that work according to what they expect/want to see. You are thinking from the assumption that things are only acceptable if total compliance is enforced. Even on the highly-controlled and regulated Internet there is still abhorrent content out there, why would you expect that from the alternative? The interesting question is: do you think that the majority of people don't see this side of the internet because of how effective the centralized control and policing is, or just because the majority of people are not interested in seeing this content in the first place?
    - the_gastropod 3y ago
      > The interesting question is: do you think that the majority of people don't see this side of the internet because of how effective the centralized control and policing is, or just because the majority of people are not interested in seeing this content in the first place? Both! Most people don't want to see beheading videos and would be very upset if one came across their Youtube recommendations. Fortunately, YouTube's "CENSORSHIP" is pretty good at not showing such videos (even though they're completely legal content!) However, there is a significant long tail pool of people who are totally into watching such abhorrent content (e.g., 8channers), and could easily cause a deeply offensive content to find itself in the unmoderated "Democratically trending" video feed, as it's demonstrated in the Flare example walkthrough. Maybe that's your point? Platforms like these will necessarily be used pretty much exclusively by people who like or will tolerate seeing extremely offensive content because everyone else will be put off by the occasional display of horribleness. Libertarian "DON'T CENSOR ME, BRO" havens like 8chan, kiwifarms, daily stormer, etc. already exist. They're not particularly popular, when compared to the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. But they're certainly popular enough to draw millions of users. And every one of them would be delighted if they could post their inflammatory nonsense on Facebook or YouTube to reach a wider audience. And Facebook and YouTube have wider audiences because they moderate content. In a previous life I worked building popular social media apps that included user-generated content. And I saw first-hand how horrific content moderation is. The shit people post to social media sites is as vile as it is vast. I'm certain most "anti-censorship" people's opinions would be changed if they'd watched an actual content moderator do their job for 30 minutes.
      - skinkestek 3y ago
        Why compare against neo nazi and shock websites? Why expect everything to end in "trending" feed? Telegram has solved this problem a loooong time ago. Those who want beheading and castration videos subscribe to russian and arab channels. Those that doesn't goes elsewhere. And if one of them shows up in the comments of a sane channel we report them and they are gone.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        The point that I am trying to make and I am not sure you are getting: if we take the decentralized system as the Internet and the different social Networks as "relays with autonomy over their own content", isn't that already an example that that each subnetwork gets to enforce the policies that their own communities value? The problem I am taking with your view is that shows a not-so-subtle hint of totalitarianism. It tries to use the abuses caused by people with freedom to justify that we all should lose our liberties (or accept that global subjugation to a common set of rules as inevitable. Yeah, currently all platforms that promote "censorship-resistance" are predominantly used by those who got affected by large -scale censorship. Yeah, most of these people are doing or saying despicable things. But that should not be an argument to make the case that centralized platforms and worldwide gatekeepers are the best solution. To repeat: you keep arguing like the enthusiasts of decentralized platforms are "anti-censorship", when in fact the fight is about claiming back some sense of autonomy and agency to let people be able to do the moderation/curation themselves (or to someone closer to them who understands their values and social context better)

rglullis 3y ago

Nostr makes fun of the idea that you can have centralized moderation and moves it explicitly to the relays. It is up to the relay owner to determine what is allowed or not.

the_gastropod 3y ago
Which practically means unanimous agreement is needed among all relays in order to moderate anything. I also don't see what incentive / accountability relays face to remove content. So... I don't see that strategy being particularly effective. But hey! If more than a couple dozen people wind up actually using the thing, guess we'll find out!
- rglullis 3y ago
  > Which practically means unanimous agreement is needed among all relays in order to moderate anything. No, it means that the people will tend to congregate around the relays that work according to what they expect/want to see. You are thinking from the assumption that things are only acceptable if total compliance is enforced. Even on the highly-controlled and regulated Internet there is still abhorrent content out there, why would you expect that from the alternative? The interesting question is: do you think that the majority of people don't see this side of the internet because of how effective the centralized control and policing is, or just because the majority of people are not interested in seeing this content in the first place?
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    > The interesting question is: do you think that the majority of people don't see this side of the internet because of how effective the centralized control and policing is, or just because the majority of people are not interested in seeing this content in the first place? Both! Most people don't want to see beheading videos and would be very upset if one came across their Youtube recommendations. Fortunately, YouTube's "CENSORSHIP" is pretty good at not showing such videos (even though they're completely legal content!) However, there is a significant long tail pool of people who are totally into watching such abhorrent content (e.g., 8channers), and could easily cause a deeply offensive content to find itself in the unmoderated "Democratically trending" video feed, as it's demonstrated in the Flare example walkthrough. Maybe that's your point? Platforms like these will necessarily be used pretty much exclusively by people who like or will tolerate seeing extremely offensive content because everyone else will be put off by the occasional display of horribleness. Libertarian "DON'T CENSOR ME, BRO" havens like 8chan, kiwifarms, daily stormer, etc. already exist. They're not particularly popular, when compared to the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. But they're certainly popular enough to draw millions of users. And every one of them would be delighted if they could post their inflammatory nonsense on Facebook or YouTube to reach a wider audience. And Facebook and YouTube have wider audiences because they moderate content. In a previous life I worked building popular social media apps that included user-generated content. And I saw first-hand how horrific content moderation is. The shit people post to social media sites is as vile as it is vast. I'm certain most "anti-censorship" people's opinions would be changed if they'd watched an actual content moderator do their job for 30 minutes.
    - skinkestek 3y ago
      Why compare against neo nazi and shock websites? Why expect everything to end in "trending" feed? Telegram has solved this problem a loooong time ago. Those who want beheading and castration videos subscribe to russian and arab channels. Those that doesn't goes elsewhere. And if one of them shows up in the comments of a sane channel we report them and they are gone.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      The point that I am trying to make and I am not sure you are getting: if we take the decentralized system as the Internet and the different social Networks as "relays with autonomy over their own content", isn't that already an example that that each subnetwork gets to enforce the policies that their own communities value? The problem I am taking with your view is that shows a not-so-subtle hint of totalitarianism. It tries to use the abuses caused by people with freedom to justify that we all should lose our liberties (or accept that global subjugation to a common set of rules as inevitable. Yeah, currently all platforms that promote "censorship-resistance" are predominantly used by those who got affected by large -scale censorship. Yeah, most of these people are doing or saying despicable things. But that should not be an argument to make the case that centralized platforms and worldwide gatekeepers are the best solution. To repeat: you keep arguing like the enthusiasts of decentralized platforms are "anti-censorship", when in fact the fight is about claiming back some sense of autonomy and agency to let people be able to do the moderation/curation themselves (or to someone closer to them who understands their values and social context better)