[HN Gopher] The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
___________________________________________________________________
The decentralized web and the future of Section 230
Author : yosoyubik
Score : 63 points
Date : 2022-11-18 19:56 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thecgo.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thecgo.org)
| larsonnn wrote:
| I'm don't understanding the claim of Matrix being decentralised.
| In the end I host a server and you talk with me. I give you the
| choice of choosing the authentication. For that I need an account
| at the authentication provider like Microsoft.
|
| So all authenticate with Microsoft.
|
| I create a user for them at my server which is still be needed to
| have the at least the timeline saved.
|
| At which point I have decentralisation here?
|
| And because I can't handle the traffic on my raspberry I host
| this on a PaaS/SaaS provider like AWS.
|
| That would assume all web servers are decentralised web3
| technologies.
| Arathorn wrote:
| what? you don't need an authentication provider like Microsoft
| to use Matrix! You just sign up with a username/password on the
| server :)
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| I was not expecting Matrix and Urbit to be the two technological
| focuses of this article.
|
| Glad to see Washington DC has think-tanks who are al least
| literate in fediverse and P2P technology.
| kodah wrote:
| > If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse,
| they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will
| incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus
| content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and
| abusable corporate or government interventions.
|
| I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all.
|
| There's a lot of content on the internet today that I just don't
| want to see. Coincidentally, while I had a conversation with
| people about the benefits of intersectionality a Robin DiAngelo
| follower joined. This person masked themselves as "just asking
| questions" and then proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical
| racism and subsequent victim position seeking I've ever seen. As
| much as I'd love to "ostracize" this person and never hear of
| them again, as much as my day would've been far better without
| knowing people like this exist, I don't think it's right to
| ostracize people. That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We
| mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until
| they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo
| followers find their way _back_ to rational society, not out from
| it forever.
| peteradio wrote:
| > That's how we got flat Earth
|
| Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of
| trolls?
|
| Don't feed the trolls people!
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| What's your uncle like at Thanksgiving?
| peteradio wrote:
| Let me put it this way, the only people who've I've ever
| heard talking about flat earth are incredulous nerds.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| I think you underestimate the prevalence of
| incredulousness in society.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can
| exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I
| can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words,
| internet becomes a set of private clubs or not.
|
| Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If
| delineation is clear, enforceable it could work.
|
| It would destroy current social media.
|
| And that.. is not something I am ambivalent about.
| phailhaus wrote:
| > We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces
| until they created their own.
|
| They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views
| weren't accepted. That's the problem with this line of
| thinking: people will only stick around if you're willing to
| accept their beliefs as reasonable to some extent. But nobody
| accepts that for ideas like Flat Earth or white supremacy, so
| they formed their own communities where they do.
|
| There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around",
| then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. And if
| they are reasonable ideas, then why should they drop them? This
| is how they spread.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| >They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views
| weren't accepted
|
| none of youtube/twitter/reddit/twitch knockoffs existed (or
| had much traction) before _massive_ purges on those platforms
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << They weren't pushed out
|
| I struggle hard to take this comment in good faith given how
| blatantly inaccurate it is. Still, I will assume poster is
| just ill-informed.
|
| There were entire communities, who were effectively forced
| out of their respective online spots with arguments presented
| to them in order were: 'well find a different forum, website,
| cloudflare provider, isp'. Most recent such community was
| kiwifarms, but even before those there were multiple others
| than keep being 'moved'.
|
| <<then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.
|
| No. A rational person can tell that 'sky is made of
| marshmallow' is bs. If they cannot, some thinning of the herd
| is clearly necessary. If a person struggles with basics of
| life and cannot comprehend basic language, I have little to
| offer.
|
| edit: Seriously. If I tell you that all humans are in fact
| cappucino makers, do most people go into existential crisis?
| No, they don't. Do you know why? Me neither, but I don't see
| you serving me a cappucino either.
|
| It is a ridiculously bad argument. Please rewrite.
| phailhaus wrote:
| > No. A rational person can tell that 'sky is made of
| marshmallow' is bs. If they cannot, some thinning of the
| herd is clearly necessary. If a person struggles with
| basics of life and cannot comprehend basic language, I have
| little to offer.
|
| Not sure what point you're trying to make here. What in the
| world does "thinning of the herd" mean?! Are you advocating
| for eugenics?
|
| > If I tell you that all humans are in fact cappucino
| makers, do most people go into existential crisis?
|
| Who's going into an existential crisis? Flat Earthers are
| being told that their beliefs are garbage, and _they_ are
| going into crisis and forming their own communities to
| reinforce their beliefs.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << Are you advocating for eugenics?
|
| eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction
| within a human population to increase the occurrence of
| heritable characteristics regarded as desirable
|
| I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as
| you will.
|
| << Who's going into an existential crisis?
|
| You are. You chase people with 'wrong ideas' away. You
| cannot co-exist with an idea that somehow is not one that
| you believe in, which is why you equate existence of an
| idea next to you with your passive acceptance of that
| idea, which is ridiculous. Ideas exist regardless of
| whether you accept them or not. It is both fascinating
| and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require
| your explicit permission to exist.
|
| Hell. I am this close to arguing with you on behalf of
| flat earthers, because I am almost certain based on the
| conversation so far you are the type of person, who would
| have sent Gallileo to jail for heresy.
| phailhaus wrote:
| > I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it
| as you will.
|
| What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth
| is flat?
|
| > It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think
| presentable ideas require your explicit permission to
| exist.
|
| Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to
| have built up quite a straw man that you are getting
| really upset about. Here it is put simply: _I am under no
| obligation to entertain your beliefs_. If you get
| offended by that and run away to form your own community,
| thats your problem. You can 't force me to pretend as if
| Flat Earth is a reasonable idea. We're thousands of years
| past that point.
|
| I really don't understand your position. You are
| simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being
| ignored, but also seem to think they should die.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to
| entertain your beliefs.
|
| What I'm wondering is why you think that you're the host.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| <<They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their
| views weren't accepted.
|
| Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at
| characterization and framing is misleading. They did not
| 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or
| w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed
| is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own
| communities. Your entire premise is flawed from
| misrepresentation of that one key element.
|
| <<I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs.
|
| We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to
| others. Others are under no obligation to entertain your
| beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same
| sphere.
|
| << You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you
| are getting really upset about.
|
| It is not a straw man. You saying 'flat earthers' just
| picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I
| am just calling it out.
|
| << I really don't understand your position.
|
| I don't like misrepresentation of simple facts, but bold
| misstatements like those above require corrections.
|
| <<You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are
| being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.
|
| I will defend idiot's right to say stupid stuff. I have
| no problem with an idiot dying. It is not some sort of
| mystery.
| klabb3 wrote:
| > There's no way around this.
|
| Uhm, yes there is.
|
| > If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that
| these are reasonable ideas.
|
| No, you don't.
|
| Apologies for the terseness, but there are solutions here.
| It's a problem of signal-to-noise ratio, not an issue of
| principles and tolerance. Reddit has done a lot by looking at
| user _behavior_ , as opposed to content, and it's the best
| system so far for any public, global social media with plenty
| of bad actors. They've also federated human moderation, which
| is a step in the right direction.
| phailhaus wrote:
| Reddit is my go-to example for effective moderation. Here's
| how they do it: every so often, they straight up ban entire
| communities from the platform.
| klabb3 wrote:
| Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like,
| because I don't think opinions should be regulated by
| corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In
| case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with
| bad opinions?
| phailhaus wrote:
| Banning hate groups has been provably effective at
| reducing toxicity on the platform, [1] so the idea that
| bans will just cause the toxicity to spread to other
| subreddits turned out to be false. Analogously, we have
| no obligation to entertain Flat Earthers. If they feel
| "ostracized" and leave, that's their loss.
|
| [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-12-reddit-hate-
| subreddits-b...
| christkv wrote:
| Great Chinese social credit system with ever changing goal
| lines for punishment
| lzooz wrote:
| >proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical racism and
| subsequent victim position seeking
|
| I read this and I don't know which side of the spectrum this
| was about :P
| kodah wrote:
| DiAngelo followers don't generally like intersectionality
| because their views are incompatible with it.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| How?
| kodah wrote:
| DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of
| white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns
| race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies
| the concept.
|
| Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of
| struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues.
| It's a far healthier way to look at the world.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| phailhaus wrote:
| This is bottom-of-the-barrel flamebait.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked,
| ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they
| created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo
| followers find their way back to rational society, not out from
| it forever.
|
| How are you going to bring irrational people _back_ to rational
| society? If someone has signed on to some fantastically
| unrealistic position and made it a part of their personality
| the only way out is deprogramming. That takes so much effort.
| It 's also not something most people are equipped to handle.
| It's also not something the general public should be expected
| to do.
| dinosaurdynasty wrote:
| Problem is if there are enough of them they end up storming a
| capitol building
| kodah wrote:
| > How are you going to bring irrational people back to
| rational society?
|
| This is probably where our work needs to be, and I agree it's
| not everyone's burden to undertake. It's taxing and requires
| a lot of emotional energy that some might not have. My
| personal experience with people that believed in conspiracies
| is that with enough _normal human_ contact they eventually
| adjust. Sometimes there 's an underlying issue that leads to
| conspiratorial thinking; I'm not even necessarily talking
| about mental health. It could be financial or interpersonal.
|
| I'm just saying that the alternative of banishment isn't
| great. It doesn't dissolve the things we don't want,
| generally.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| [...] the political establishment's hostility towards the idea of
| Twitter being purchased and run by new free speech-friendly
| management.
|
| It wasn't (just) the ,,political establishment" that considered
| it a bad idea. Even the buyer thought it was a terrible mistake
| just hours after making the deal. And they were all right!
|
| Only the ,,free-speech friendly management" has been most notable
| for firing a bunch of people for criticizing him or making fun of
| his advertisers.
| 35amxn35 wrote:
| They may be fired, but they still can post on Twitter. Big
| distinction.
|
| You can't critize/one up your boss in public for
| internet/virtue signalling points and expect to keep your job.
| Try that in any _job_ and see what happens. The real danger is
| Twitter acting as the arbiter of truth, which was the case for
| the last few years.
| xoa wrote:
| Holy crap is this a stupid backwards article. First and foremost,
| like so many online, IT HAS NO IDEA WHAT "FREE SPEECH" ACTUALLY
| IS.
|
| > _With this success came controversy. Critics of content
| moderation decisions came to view Section 230 liability
| protections as a de facto subsidy for censorious platforms to
| limit public speech or to be less than judicious in limiting
| speech_
|
| These "critics" are either ignorant or malicious or both. Free
| Speech is about keeping violence out of the search for truth.
| That's it. It's not some saccharine unicorn crap where all ideas
| are equally special and get a gold star, some ideas suck. But
| since we have no oracles it's dangerous to allow violence to
| solidify that in place, so instead the search is kept in the
| social and economic space. Saying something of course is free
| speech, but so necessarily is NOT saying something. Keeping
| things off your own soap box, not wanting to associate with
| people who say things you think are wrong enough, and so on are
| all themselves core free speech too. Those who you think are
| wrong and think you are wrong may put out their own soap boxes.
| There is no right to an audience or social approval or economic
| rewards, one must successfully argue and convince others for
| that. That's the whole point! "Censorous platforms" is pure
| propaganda. Moderation isn't censorship, it's free speech too.
|
| And "platform" doesn't fucking mean anything either. Section 230
| is as much about the tiniest sites as it is the largest.
|
| > _Now the internet is pushing towards decentralization that may
| make Section 230 and centralized content moderation moot._
|
| No, that's completely backwards. Section 230 is a bedrock of
| decentralization! It's what means some rando individual or tiny
| startup or whatever can host something and allow anyone else to
| post. From comment sections in blogs to all those shiny new
| Mastodon services. Without it, only gigantic corporations could
| afford to carry the insurance and do the moderation to allow user
| content.
|
| > _Government agents must find and identify individuals involved
| with each incident._
|
| Haha (on multiple grounds). First, the big threats are civil, not
| "government agents". It's anyone who feels like filing a
| defamation claim or whatever else. Suggesting that lots of tiny
| entities with zero in-house legal council or budget is hard to go
| after is like saying that the copyright cartels could never go
| after individual bittorrent users or sites back in the day, or
| patent trolls after tiny businesses. Ie., laughably at odds with
| observed actual reality. What would actually happen is what has,
| in fact, happened repeatedly: firms will come about that will
| send mass threat letters. Host some little fun forum for a niche
| tabletop game or ultralight planes or something? Somebody posts
| some comment that could maybe vaguely be construed as defamation.
| If your forum or channel or Mastodon or whatever is on a topic
| then you must be moderating which means you're not a common
| carrier, so without Section 230 you are liable. So you get a
| letter saying they'll take you to court or you can settle for a
| mere $2000-6000 or whatever it is (calibrated to what they think
| they can squeeze from you). Now what? There will be a profit
| incentive to develop ML systems to go hunting through whatever
| federated networks there are looking for anything that might be
| legally actionable. There will be profit motive for someone
| disgruntled at a given forum to call attention to anything
| actionable they can find. There will be a profit motive to try to
| post defamatory material from sock puppet accounts and then sue
| over it! Say goodbye to any sort of non-IRL ID verified accounts,
| except even that might not be good enough for small players given
| the stakes and how much even going to court at all costs when you
| have to go to discovery vs dealing with it via summary judgement
| at the earliest stage.
|
| The growing drumbeat against one of the foundational parts of the
| net, which makes the very site here where all of us comment
| possible, is definitely worrying though.
| nathias wrote:
| No, free speech isn't just about keeping violence from search
| of truth it's about tolerating what you consider untruth.
| Rationalist philosophers that invented the concept were
| censored, excommunicated and their works were burned, would you
| say their censors were just expressing their own free speech?
| Ptchd wrote:
| I still experience the same Matrix bugs as I did years ago...
| When you setup a new client, it can take 24h for the content to
| get decrypted after you verify that client...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > The courts had traditionally found that liability is determined
| by whether or not an entity was acting as a publisher actively
| vetting, producing, and editing content (liable), or a
| distributor merely selling the products offered by publishers
| (less-liable).
|
| > The immediate impact of Section 230 was to halt the developing
| body of common law being forged through internet speech-related
| litigation.
|
| Big mistake in my opinion.
| lstodd wrote:
| As any fule kno US internets are a pile of crap tied up by
| rotten shoelaces compared even to Russia's (as of about five
| years ago).
|
| While in US there were all sorts of crap tied and/or caused by
| this lawyer worship, the rest of the world kept moving on.
| fredgrott wrote:
| Maybe we are missing some things....
|
| What is different about Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIN?
|
| they all do social but Twitter has more abuse than the other two.
|
| Is that due to the structure involved?
|
| Or extend it further, is amplification bad because the ones doing
| the amplification are somewhat flawed in coping mechanisms?
|
| What I mean is we keep looking at social platforms as the
| problem, instead of seeing that the are lenses into the society
| problems yet not solved and handled.
|
| I.E. based on networks and economics the ones that can amplify
| the worst economic decisions coupled with the least coping skills
| cause the most harm on social networks. Caution, not a statement
| about individuals or politics just some deep way above things
| macro observations.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-18 23:00 UTC)