4 ms·

This incident highlights dangers of centralized information distribution brought to us by social networks - being a single point of control they present attract

by DenisM 12y ago

This incident highlights dangers of centralized information distribution brought to us by social networks - being a single point of control they present attractive target for pressure by censors of all kinds, be it dictator regimes, powerful corporations in the west, etc. It's not unlike Napster - there is a lot of benefit to everyone being in one place, but far too easy to subvert. The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path - gradual decentralization.

brador 12y ago
There are advantages to this, at least temporarily. We can see who wants to censor the information. With a distributed network they would simply blend into the crowd.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  And what good does that do us? With a decentralized network those who want to censor can't, so they can be ignored, even as they call for "some kind of censorship" (you can see then who they are, too).
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    One can censor and propagandize in a decentralized network, though, and it does happen.
- raquo 12y ago
  It's usually pretty obvious who wants to censor what information and why.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Can you say more here?
    - raquo 12y ago
      For Navalny? Putin is shooting him down because he's gaining too much popular support exposing and fighting corruption. They don't want people on the streets supporting him. In general, follow the money trail (or the power trail) and it's easy to see who's censoring stuff. Maybe not very obvious in other countries, but in Russia it's clear as day. In Russia-wide issues the power trail always terminates at Putin, with local issues it could be some local government official. A bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778653
      - xnull2guest 12y ago
        Ahh, I meant in general. Unfortunately in the general case it is usually very difficult to follow the money and power trail - and one needs to first identify that there is censorship (or coercive information) to begin with. In Russia, there are many actors - the US and Western allies have a lot of interests (both monied and power) there as well - as does China. Not sure exactly what I was expecting you to say about the general case, but thank you.
sysk 12y ago
> The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path - gradual decentralization. Like the web? Sorry for the snark but being blocked from Facebook is the equivalent of being blocked from Geocities in my mind. I do think a decentralised social network would be a step forward but let's not attribute too much power to Facebook as it only gives them more legitimacy.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I do think Facebook has a lot of pull. Many people get their news through their Facebook feed (an awful idea) - at least many people that I know. And it's the largest place where you can discuss things with close friends and family in mass. Other places on the internet allow mass broadcast - for information dispersal content not only matters but also source/reputation.
  - maigret 12y ago
    Yes, similar case for Google... Looking at some countries where Google has 90% market share, when you are deleting something from Google, you are effectively mostly deleting the content page itself - at least reducing the discovery by a factor 10, which can be critical.
    - chii 12y ago
      but then what would be the solution to such a problem? Without centralization, content discovery/search is difficult.
      - dandelion_lover 12y ago
        Did you not hear about http://yacy.net http://yacy.net ?
- DenisM 12y ago
  The web still has chokepoints at DNS and PKI, and routing is also vulnerable to blocks. USENET/FIDONET are better mental models when it comes to resilience.

by DenisM 12y ago

brador 12y ago

There are advantages to this, at least temporarily. We can see who wants to censor the information. With a distributed network they would simply blend into the crowd.

higherpurpose 12y ago
And what good does that do us? With a decentralized network those who want to censor can't, so they can be ignored, even as they call for "some kind of censorship" (you can see then who they are, too).
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  One can censor and propagandize in a decentralized network, though, and it does happen.
raquo 12y ago
It's usually pretty obvious who wants to censor what information and why.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Can you say more here?
  - raquo 12y ago
    For Navalny? Putin is shooting him down because he's gaining too much popular support exposing and fighting corruption. They don't want people on the streets supporting him. In general, follow the money trail (or the power trail) and it's easy to see who's censoring stuff. Maybe not very obvious in other countries, but in Russia it's clear as day. In Russia-wide issues the power trail always terminates at Putin, with local issues it could be some local government official. A bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778653
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Ahh, I meant in general. Unfortunately in the general case it is usually very difficult to follow the money and power trail - and one needs to first identify that there is censorship (or coercive information) to begin with. In Russia, there are many actors - the US and Western allies have a lot of interests (both monied and power) there as well - as does China. Not sure exactly what I was expecting you to say about the general case, but thank you.

sysk 12y ago

> The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path - gradual decentralization. Like the web? Sorry for the snark but being blocked from Facebook is the equivalent of being blocked from Geocities in my mind. I do think a decentralised social network would be a step forward but let's not attribute too much power to Facebook as it only gives them more legitimacy.

xnull2guest 12y ago
I do think Facebook has a lot of pull. Many people get their news through their Facebook feed (an awful idea) - at least many people that I know. And it's the largest place where you can discuss things with close friends and family in mass. Other places on the internet allow mass broadcast - for information dispersal content not only matters but also source/reputation.
- maigret 12y ago
  Yes, similar case for Google... Looking at some countries where Google has 90% market share, when you are deleting something from Google, you are effectively mostly deleting the content page itself - at least reducing the discovery by a factor 10, which can be critical.
  - chii 12y ago
    but then what would be the solution to such a problem? Without centralization, content discovery/search is difficult.
    - dandelion_lover 12y ago
      Did you not hear about http://yacy.net http://yacy.net ?
DenisM 12y ago
The web still has chokepoints at DNS and PKI, and routing is also vulnerable to blocks. USENET/FIDONET are better mental models when it comes to resilience.