4 ms·

> The internet was about connection, but the way I see it, it’s become a great way for bad actors to... There seems to be a profound confusion somewhere in her

by roenxi 1mo ago

> The internet was about connection, but the way I see it, it’s become a great way for bad actors to... There seems to be a profound confusion somewhere in here that people come with an evil bit and we're going to toggle technology so that those people can't use it and everyone else can. Y'know, racists use cars to drive to their racist conventions or whatever. On publicly funded roads. Possibly with time freed up by a strong welfare system. Just because people someone doesn't like use or made something has little relevance to the value of the thing. Horrible people make wonderful things in horrible ways all the time, history is rife with it [0]. Getting off most social media does seem like a win though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber is a great example, this man is arguably greatly responsible for billions of people being alive today. Which is absolutely stunning in context of the rest of his Wikipedia page.

pjc50 1mo ago
> cars Good example: cars come with a tracking identifier (license plate), tied to a responsible individual, who is subject to a test, and whose permission to use it can be revoked if they abuse it badly enough.
- raincole 1mo ago
  Yes, that's why we should deanonymizing the internet. Everyone should need a government-issued license to access websites. That's exactly what the modern society needs. (in case it's not super obvious, /s)
  - hypfer 1mo ago
    I hate to say it, but I do not see how else a nation state could act. The goal of a state is stability. The free, open, anonymous global internet otoh is a force of change. The west really liked that, back when it was useful to its geopolitical goals, but now, not only does it have outlived its usefulness, but also, it's suddenly being pointed at the west itself. At least I do not see how it could be any other way. You cannot simultaneously have high-trust and low-filtering in a space. I think a lot of confusion stems from the fact that this was actually always kinda the case. It was just not enforced by law, but by the fact that computers were weird, expensive and complex. As the technology matured, these core assumptions started holding true less, until, eventually, we've ended up where we are now. ___ This doesn't necessarily mean that we will have no more anonymous networks though. But they will be less global and less accessible. Thanks to open weights LLMs, we will have more capabilities within them than we did in the 90s and earlier, but, we will lack the leverage of tidal proportions that social media held. This, to me, sounds like the compromise to be found with the powers that keep the states we live in running.
  - fyredge 1mo ago
    But why not? I want to make the distinction on public and private speech. In the physical world, no one should ever have their private speech scrutinized, that's why there are laws banning covert recording. But in public, speech is very much moderated. We don't allow hate speech and we don't allow harassment of others. Social media is a public platform. We can't enforce moderation if we can't identify the abuser, they can always just make a new account. So deanonymize social media access, but for private communication? Let's leave that free from prying eyes. To bring it back to cars, roads are public infrastructure, that's why you need a license. No one cares if you drive licenseless on your private track.
    - pjc50 1mo ago
      I generally agree with this, but a problem I can't solve is: at what point does a "large group chat" become a "public channel"? If, hypothetically, someone is organizing a thousand people in balaclavas to turn up outside a business they want to intimidate, over Telegram or Signal, is that "private" or "public"? (also everyone in this thread saying deanonymisation does not on its own solve the problem is correct)
      - fyredge 1mo ago
        I draw the line on discoverability. Reddit? Public. Hacker news? Public. 4chan? Public. Facebook and Instagram are also public with a slight caveat, private accounts will be considered private, otherwise public. Even ye old public forums are considered public. Discord and group chats will be considered private. Basically anything that requires an invitation / permission to view their content is considered private. To your example, I'm not sure if J6 members were organising publicly themselves. If the FBI wanted to, they could easily infiltrate these groups as an anonymous member themselves, so I don't see a contradiction there. Legislatively, it means that platforms will be held responsible for their public content, which I think is fair. If there are too much content to moderate, it's up to them to find solutions. I hear rumours of a promising automating tool called LLMs.
    - halsafar 1mo ago
      Not all internet usage would be deemed public. Social media sure. What about what you watch on PornHub? Should that be tied directly to your government ID? I know that's an easy one to cherry pick but just consider all you use the internet for and how an adversarial governmenft could use some of that info. Personally I'd love to see all social media corps required to verify ID but leave the rest of the internet alone.
  - newsclues 1mo ago
    I definitely participate in a deanonymized internet social media platforms, especially for local issues, employment or niche hobbies. I also want anonymous internet, but having the choice between the two, for certain things may be great.
- mrweasel 1mo ago
  While there are more trolls and bots on Facebook than real users, but many of those real users have no issue using their real name and picture while excepting awful behaviour. I'm not sure that adding an identifier is really going to help that much.
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    Oh, indeed. There's been a real public reversal in tolerance for open racism, over the past (see date) almost exactly 25 years. This is now coming full circle in the UK; the Daily Mail (!) has a rightwing extortion mob outside their offices right now led by a "Danny Tommo". And we all know who Elon Musk is.
  - vaylian 1mo ago
    Also: Good users can be more easily harassed, because they use their real name.
  - giva 1mo ago
    It could be explained by the herd mentality. An angry man alone would probably not throw stones in the street with his face uncovered; But he would probably do so in a riot. Now, in social networks, is quite easy to simulate persons and have them starting a riot. Having a way to identify real persons could make this more difficult.
watwut 1mo ago
Roads are neutral, social networks are not. Twitter is run by white supremacist openly trying to stroke racial violence. Facebook moderation favored pro-genocide side before the genocide. And it continues to favor outrage stroking groups.
- jasode 1mo ago
  >Roads are neutral, social networks are not. The gp's analogy maps better this way: roads = ip packet network routing, DNS, telecommunications cabling racist conventions/meetups = social media platforms like Facebook Therefore, "I hate the internet" is analogous to "I hate the roads" because their perspective is dominated by seeing all the racists meetups that use the roads. (Yes, people do "hate traffic" but that not's the same as "hating roads". Anyone who has travelled on unpaved dirt roads or gravel trails that make their teeth rattle will appreciate having paved roads. And that appreciation doesn't change even if a lot of KKK racist members also use roads.)
- dreamcompiler 1mo ago
  Agreed but the word is stoke not stroke.
- psd1 1mo ago
  I agree with "roads are neutral", but to be really precise, no they aren't; they are built by a polity at the expense of some other not-built roads, in a way that supports some types of traffic more than others. Compare Los Angeles to Utrecht. The industrial age brought tech with enough downside to spark a reaction. Then there was a run of less-contentious tech. Recently, we've had a run of tech that looks to me like all downside for society. The conditions (neoliberalism) are still in place. People are not empowered by hf trading, web 2.0, social media. They could be, but the tech was co-opted. IMO, neither are they empowered, in the round, by crypto or AI.
croes 1mo ago
But social media is like a car that drives faster if you’re racist. Their algorithms promote the wrong posts for the wrong reasons.
- kubb 1mo ago
  Red pill content also gives you a nice speed boost. And xenophobia is very good for engagement.
viccis 1mo ago
I think you are ignoring McLuhan's very very famous point ("the medium is the message") which is that new forms of media do more than just allow us to extend ourselves in new ways; they change our mindset by enabling those new capabilities. It's not so much what we're using the media to communicate as it is what kind of communication that medium encourages. Television had disastrous consequences on what would seem to be unrelated behavior [1], including an increase in general antisocial behavior among children. 1: https://justinharter.com/my-god-it-was-awfulmy-husband-and-i-just-talked/ https://justinharter.com/my-god-it-was-awfulmy-husband-and-i...
BrunoBernardino 1mo ago
The over-simplification and over-sharing natures of the current times do seem to fight against balanced positions, unfortunately.
torben-friis 1mo ago
The road is neither public nor neutral, and that's where the analogy breaks. This road is owned by a casino, and its signs are scientifically placed so that you take the wrong turn and reach their business. They place guardrails in the specific spot to hide places they don't want you to see. They actively encourage your children to grab a car and drive on it, even at risk of their health, to groom a new generation of casino clients.
leonidasrup 1mo ago
Fritz_Haber, his inventions killed millions and his invention (Haber–Bosch process) helps to produce food for billions. " It is estimated that a third of annual global food production uses ammonia from the Haber–Bosch process, and that this food supports nearly half the world's population. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber " Ammonia production is a highly energy intensive process consuming around 1.8% of global energy output each year (steam methane reforming accounts for over 80% of the energy required) and producing as a result about 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (about 1.8% of global carbon dioxide emissions) " https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/green-ammonia/ https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-...
mrhottakes 1mo ago
Do you honestly think roads and the internet are similar? I don't think you've really thought that through.
beej71 1mo ago
I don't understand. Your comment seems to imply that the Internet has no effect on the ability of groups to organize?

by roenxi 1mo ago

pjc50 1mo ago

> cars Good example: cars come with a tracking identifier (license plate), tied to a responsible individual, who is subject to a test, and whose permission to use it can be revoked if they abuse it badly enough.

raincole 1mo ago
Yes, that's why we should deanonymizing the internet. Everyone should need a government-issued license to access websites. That's exactly what the modern society needs. (in case it's not super obvious, /s)
- hypfer 1mo ago
  I hate to say it, but I do not see how else a nation state could act. The goal of a state is stability. The free, open, anonymous global internet otoh is a force of change. The west really liked that, back when it was useful to its geopolitical goals, but now, not only does it have outlived its usefulness, but also, it's suddenly being pointed at the west itself. At least I do not see how it could be any other way. You cannot simultaneously have high-trust and low-filtering in a space. I think a lot of confusion stems from the fact that this was actually always kinda the case. It was just not enforced by law, but by the fact that computers were weird, expensive and complex. As the technology matured, these core assumptions started holding true less, until, eventually, we've ended up where we are now. ___ This doesn't necessarily mean that we will have no more anonymous networks though. But they will be less global and less accessible. Thanks to open weights LLMs, we will have more capabilities within them than we did in the 90s and earlier, but, we will lack the leverage of tidal proportions that social media held. This, to me, sounds like the compromise to be found with the powers that keep the states we live in running.
- fyredge 1mo ago
  But why not? I want to make the distinction on public and private speech. In the physical world, no one should ever have their private speech scrutinized, that's why there are laws banning covert recording. But in public, speech is very much moderated. We don't allow hate speech and we don't allow harassment of others. Social media is a public platform. We can't enforce moderation if we can't identify the abuser, they can always just make a new account. So deanonymize social media access, but for private communication? Let's leave that free from prying eyes. To bring it back to cars, roads are public infrastructure, that's why you need a license. No one cares if you drive licenseless on your private track.
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    I generally agree with this, but a problem I can't solve is: at what point does a "large group chat" become a "public channel"? If, hypothetically, someone is organizing a thousand people in balaclavas to turn up outside a business they want to intimidate, over Telegram or Signal, is that "private" or "public"? (also everyone in this thread saying deanonymisation does not on its own solve the problem is correct)
    - fyredge 1mo ago
      I draw the line on discoverability. Reddit? Public. Hacker news? Public. 4chan? Public. Facebook and Instagram are also public with a slight caveat, private accounts will be considered private, otherwise public. Even ye old public forums are considered public. Discord and group chats will be considered private. Basically anything that requires an invitation / permission to view their content is considered private. To your example, I'm not sure if J6 members were organising publicly themselves. If the FBI wanted to, they could easily infiltrate these groups as an anonymous member themselves, so I don't see a contradiction there. Legislatively, it means that platforms will be held responsible for their public content, which I think is fair. If there are too much content to moderate, it's up to them to find solutions. I hear rumours of a promising automating tool called LLMs.
  - halsafar 1mo ago
    Not all internet usage would be deemed public. Social media sure. What about what you watch on PornHub? Should that be tied directly to your government ID? I know that's an easy one to cherry pick but just consider all you use the internet for and how an adversarial governmenft could use some of that info. Personally I'd love to see all social media corps required to verify ID but leave the rest of the internet alone.
- newsclues 1mo ago
  I definitely participate in a deanonymized internet social media platforms, especially for local issues, employment or niche hobbies. I also want anonymous internet, but having the choice between the two, for certain things may be great.
mrweasel 1mo ago
While there are more trolls and bots on Facebook than real users, but many of those real users have no issue using their real name and picture while excepting awful behaviour. I'm not sure that adding an identifier is really going to help that much.
- pjc50 1mo ago
  Oh, indeed. There's been a real public reversal in tolerance for open racism, over the past (see date) almost exactly 25 years. This is now coming full circle in the UK; the Daily Mail (!) has a rightwing extortion mob outside their offices right now led by a "Danny Tommo". And we all know who Elon Musk is.
- vaylian 1mo ago
  Also: Good users can be more easily harassed, because they use their real name.
- giva 1mo ago
  It could be explained by the herd mentality. An angry man alone would probably not throw stones in the street with his face uncovered; But he would probably do so in a riot. Now, in social networks, is quite easy to simulate persons and have them starting a riot. Having a way to identify real persons could make this more difficult.

watwut 1mo ago

Roads are neutral, social networks are not. Twitter is run by white supremacist openly trying to stroke racial violence. Facebook moderation favored pro-genocide side before the genocide. And it continues to favor outrage stroking groups.

jasode 1mo ago
>Roads are neutral, social networks are not. The gp's analogy maps better this way: roads = ip packet network routing, DNS, telecommunications cabling racist conventions/meetups = social media platforms like Facebook Therefore, "I hate the internet" is analogous to "I hate the roads" because their perspective is dominated by seeing all the racists meetups that use the roads. (Yes, people do "hate traffic" but that not's the same as "hating roads". Anyone who has travelled on unpaved dirt roads or gravel trails that make their teeth rattle will appreciate having paved roads. And that appreciation doesn't change even if a lot of KKK racist members also use roads.)
dreamcompiler 1mo ago
Agreed but the word is stoke not stroke.
psd1 1mo ago
I agree with "roads are neutral", but to be really precise, no they aren't; they are built by a polity at the expense of some other not-built roads, in a way that supports some types of traffic more than others. Compare Los Angeles to Utrecht. The industrial age brought tech with enough downside to spark a reaction. Then there was a run of less-contentious tech. Recently, we've had a run of tech that looks to me like all downside for society. The conditions (neoliberalism) are still in place. People are not empowered by hf trading, web 2.0, social media. They could be, but the tech was co-opted. IMO, neither are they empowered, in the round, by crypto or AI.

croes 1mo ago

But social media is like a car that drives faster if you’re racist. Their algorithms promote the wrong posts for the wrong reasons.

kubb 1mo ago
Red pill content also gives you a nice speed boost. And xenophobia is very good for engagement.

viccis 1mo ago

I think you are ignoring McLuhan's very very famous point ("the medium is the message") which is that new forms of media do more than just allow us to extend ourselves in new ways; they change our mindset by enabling those new capabilities. It's not so much what we're using the media to communicate as it is what kind of communication that medium encourages. Television had disastrous consequences on what would seem to be unrelated behavior [1], including an increase in general antisocial behavior among children. 1: https://justinharter.com/my-god-it-was-awfulmy-husband-and-i-just-talked/ https://justinharter.com/my-god-it-was-awfulmy-husband-and-i...

BrunoBernardino 1mo ago

The over-simplification and over-sharing natures of the current times do seem to fight against balanced positions, unfortunately.

torben-friis 1mo ago

The road is neither public nor neutral, and that's where the analogy breaks. This road is owned by a casino, and its signs are scientifically placed so that you take the wrong turn and reach their business. They place guardrails in the specific spot to hide places they don't want you to see. They actively encourage your children to grab a car and drive on it, even at risk of their health, to groom a new generation of casino clients.

leonidasrup 1mo ago

Fritz_Haber, his inventions killed millions and his invention (Haber–Bosch process) helps to produce food for billions. " It is estimated that a third of annual global food production uses ammonia from the Haber–Bosch process, and that this food supports nearly half the world's population. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber " Ammonia production is a highly energy intensive process consuming around 1.8% of global energy output each year (steam methane reforming accounts for over 80% of the energy required) and producing as a result about 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (about 1.8% of global carbon dioxide emissions) " https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/green-ammonia/ https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-...

mrhottakes 1mo ago

Do you honestly think roads and the internet are similar? I don't think you've really thought that through.

beej71 1mo ago

I don't understand. Your comment seems to imply that the Internet has no effect on the ability of groups to organize?