3 ms·

After reading this, I'm battling the urge to suggest technical solutions to social problems. Except that in this case the social problems are caused by the fact

• kansface 12y ago
  Would you elaborate on the drastic failure modes you think are inevitable?
• mkal_tsr 12y ago
  Well, the public internet is global so if someone else can speak your language, it doesn't matter what their societal customs are, there's bound to be differences in word choices, ethics, morals, etc. And do you think that's really going to stop people? People use their real names on Facebook and news websites all the time and they're vicious to each other, anonymity doesn't always matter. People need education on wtf it means to be on a public internet site. If it's too much, move into a private site. Do I think that's a great solution? Not at all. But, I suspect it's more realistic than ensuring everyone around the world treats everyone else with hugs and kisses. It's an asshole problem, not a technical problem. But hey, now there's more reason for people to use privacy-focused means to communicate (sites, apps, networks, etc), even if that reason is the result of assholes.
• chipsy 12y ago
  I don't think it's wrong to discuss protocols, in particular, in the context of a social problem. If we assume the concept of our world as an info-centric one - bodies as libraries, food as signals, etc. - then digital networks act as a boundary of this info-verse which is more manipulable than most, one which we can revise and reorder by changing the systems of communication. However, even though it's "more manipulable" it's still not _easy_. "Social" in its surface forms - the forum, the comments section, the chat room, etc. - has persisted in a churn cycle where the form changes somewhat between iterations, but the characters, goals, and tactics are age-old. All the stuff about "us" versus "them" manifests itself in every permutation of every medium, whether it's "women" or "those bastards over the next hill" that are deemed the enemy. Troll tactics ultimately come down to the old "signal to noise" problem. Forum admins know pretty well - if you trace the "noise" in a discussion backwards to the source bad actors, and then quietly remove those actors so that innocent people aren't dragged in, the conversation changes dramatically for the better. There is no magic algorithm needed, or even privacy invasion: just sharp eyes that can spot and predict the reactions to a problematic train of thought, and prune it out before there's a flame war. But we persistently end up in spaces where high volume is encouraged, anonymity is encouraged, and moderation is hands off, hands tied, or willfully blind. We are allowing Sybil attacks to take place on our networks all the time, every time. Security aspects play a role in this, but they would be more of a long-term "how do we rebuild the internet" question; multiplayer games of a certain stripe(usually twitchy FPS games) have had to work around an inherent lack of security and the resulting cheating for a long time, and the best guarantees they've come up with are social in nature - as long as you can create identity persistence, the rest of the social profile can be built up. Advogato put a ton of thought into technical aspects of identity and trust metrics; I think many of its results remain applicable to a new network. Blockchains also enable distributed persistent identity, but not unique identity. Perhaps we could incorporate market forces and allow identities or their postings to exist as cryptoassets - creating a universe where "valuable comments" translate to wealth. Or perhaps that would be our undoing, allowing trolls to profiteer off their own cultivated following. Perhaps we could force more accountability into the system by explicitly defining top-down fiefdoms and have individuals act to "represent" those fiefdoms, therefore motivating the leaders to moderate them into the best possible light. As I see it, it's a big open field for protocol designers to come up with the right balance of incentives, privileges, and accessibility.
• protonfish 12y ago
  I think there are technical solutions to this problem (though nothing that has to do with protocols and authentication) that are very similar to the ones encountered when people were moving from small villages to cities. People seem to be able to behave in a civil and constructive manner in a group at or below Dunbar's number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number For cities to form, the technology that needed to be invented were laws and a justice system to enforce them. The logical requirements for reciprocal altruism are: 1. Others are recognizable 2. You can remember their past behavior 3. There is a reasonable chance of interacting with them again. It is this simple game-theory situation that we have to reckon with and the Internet gives us much more elegant and humane tools than Hammurabi had. Remember when comments were ordered by submission date? The difference between that pointless cesspool of idiocy (FRIST!) and the acceptable level of comments ordered by upvotes is striking. If such a simple change in UI can cause a significant increase in the quality of community discussion, there must be many other techniques to make online communication more civilized yet to be discovered. Unfortunately, they are not easily tested because it requires a large, active community and time. I am doubtful that more moderation is the answer. If the problem is people behaving poorly, giving some people more power does not sound like a solution - just a different problem. Millions (or billions?) of racist, sexist, cruel and sadistic people exist. This is not a problem with the Internet. It is a problem with the world. If there are not laws enforced by traditional justice systems against stalking, harassment and threats, there probably should be. It shouldn't matter if it is done verbally, over the phone, through the mail, or online. tl;dr The Internet did not create jerks, but it may have tools to handle them better.
  • mrcarlosrendon 12y ago
    "2. You can remember their past behavior" I think this is a big missing piece. Sure in many communities I can kinda look up their past behavior, but it is not easy. I would be good to know if this person: 1. Adds to the discussion 2. Has skin in the game Systems like karma/points/votes kind of address these, but they aren't perfect.