Hacker News Reader

> I actually think Facebook is very well equipped to combat disinformation campaigns on it's platform. At least more equipped than radio and TV.

The fact that Facebook can even be compared to radio or TV speaks to the level of centralization the internet has experienced in the last decade. We've nearly come full circle - from restricted, centralized media like TV, to the wild west of the early internet, now back to re-centralization with a few huge companies which control access to a huge chunk of the internet audience.

I think we need a new push for de-centralization.

Agree with the sentiment, but was there ever a push for decentralisation? Seems to me that the original decentralisation of the internet was circumstantial. It was due to the technology of the time (limited resources + aarpanet nuclear strike resistant design) and where it was first established (universities - which lack a unifying hierarchy).

Are you asking a rhetorical question? You sort of answered it yourself.

And yes, there was always a push to decentralize. However, network effects lead to some nodes becoming more heavily connected than others until such time that the consolidation of resource in hypernodes starts to have unintended side effects that are deleterious to the system as a whole. That tends to intensify the push to decentralize, while damping pushes to centralize.

Nature as acted out through man.

The issue I see with decentralization is that the practical surfaces (websites, devices, etc) are so difficult for the vast majority of the population to use. Simply the mental overhead of deciding whether to use Voat, reddit, Discord, or whatnot will stop a large number of people from ever participating online.

Decentralization is great for those of us who don't have the cognitive overhead, but adds a lot of complexity that this tribe underestimates. My mom, for example, hasn't been able to understand the difference between a text message and an email, and she's been actively online for about 5 years now. To her, it's all a way to communicate, but when I try to explain that email has a subject line, and text messages don't.... it's beyond her grasp.

Decentralizing will help with some of the issues that are currently front and center to technologists, but it will exclude a huge number of people.

I disagree, my earlier point illustrates this a bit more. I think early on the internet was so novel that only the experienced (programmers, academics, industry folks) could navigate it. Once the browser, Google, and smartphones arrived more and more people could access the internet, billions of people now know the rules of the road, although of course some are more expert than others.

I think your mother is a bit of an outlier. My dad is over 70 but can navigate the basics of the internet: how to text, take a photo, stream content on Youtube, etc. I think now that this basic level of competency has been reached decentralization can occur.

I think you're correct in terms of the friction, no one but nerds wants to go through the hassle of setting up their own private, decentralized network. We need systems that are as frictionless as going on Facebook or typing a query into Youtube, in my opinion this has been the main flaw of decentralized platforms.

The fact that your father is able to navigate complexity doesn't really disprove my point. Some percentage of people will be excluded / unable to participate if things are decentralized. Whether that segment is sufficiently large, or whether people care about them having access, is left to each person's opinion.

Centralization has significant advantages. People love one location for what they need because it simplifies things. That enables more folks to participate due to lower friction. Whether the downsides outweigh the positives is left to the reader.

My broader point is the centralized/de-centralized discussion should be framed in terms of tradeoffs. One is not necessarily superior to the other; it depends on how each person weights the relative benefits and downsides.

It's important to acknowledge that the general internet public, so far, seems to prefer the advantages of centralization. That may be because the disadvantages are hidden, or it may be a legitimate preference.

> I think we need a new push for de-centralization.

I believe that it will eventually happen and that this moment is prime for a decentralization push. The internet is still a bit too young to call out trends, but I'd be surprised if 50 years from now we don't notice a cyclical nature that straddles the line between centralization and decentralization when it comes to the internet.

The early web started as decentralized, but to increase the rate of adoption, drive standards, and break into the mainstream it probably needed centralization in the form of Yahoo, Google, Windows, Facebook, Apple, etc. Sometimes centralization is the best way to work out the kinks in a new system and drive quality, now that the internet has reached a certain maturity we no longer require online platforms to "hold our hands" so to speak and drive the way we interact online -- everyone knows the rules and the boundaries.

The big question for me is what does decentralization look like? There are a lot of ideas but to be honest in my opinion none of them are good (Bitcoin, federated social networks, etc.). We're still working out the model, but I think in due time we will get there. When the internet reaches its next big milestone, I think centralization will come roaring back.

>The major point of contention for me is the question of if it's Facebook's rightful place to regulate political speech,

Truthfully, this goes right out the door as soon as Facebook starts kowtowing to Government demands in order to continue operating. From the article:

>Facebook has removed posts critical of the prime minister in Cambodia and reportedly “agreed to coordinate in the monitoring and removal of content” in Vietnam. Facebook was criticized for not stopping the repression of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, where military personnel created fake accounts to spread propaganda which human rights groups say fueled violence and forced displacement.

While Facebook has walked back on the Myanmar situation, the fact stands that the initial response in these countries was to get comfortable with the Governments, not with the users and not with people they claim to serve. Facebook is a business, and I get that to some degree it answers to shareholders and chases potential revenue streams. But looking at some of the place that Facebook has been complacent, I'm really curious; is there honestly that much money for Facebook to chase?

Facebook __could__ be doing a lot more than it is if it honestly believed in protecting freedom and all that jazz. Their conversations about protecting users and such ring pretty hollow when repeatedly they just bend over to get a foot in the door in whatever country is the target for that year.

I actually think Facebook is very well equipped to combat disinformation campaigns on it's platform

Of course it is. All social media platforms are. If Twitter or Youtube or Facebook or anyone wants someone gone from their platform then they are gone. Witness Milo, witness Alex Jones.

But "enragement is engagement", if hate speech keeps people on the site longer and shows more ad impressions, we can't expect Facebook's management to do anything about it, at least, not until they are forced to by the regulators.

FB is multi cast two way speaking with logging. Radio is a simple broadcast.

Plus You can turn the radio off in a way you can’t with Facebook.

It’s The new kind of propaganda which can ONLY exist on FB/social media that is the problem.