Hacker News Reader

Comment by ketzo | Hacker News Reader

Obviously, HN is a pretty friendly place for decentralized software. But as advocates, how do you defend it to people who don’t understand the benefits?

If I’m pitching Matrix as an alternative to Slack, and someone brings up the fact that ISIS used one of them... what’s the response? Decentralized software is scary to someone fearful of shadowy groups. How do you successfully advocate for software that can be used by anyone, even the worst people out there?

View on HN

> and someone brings up the fact that ISIS used one of them...

They used Facebook, Twitter and YT for propaganda and Gmail for coordination (that thing about saving a mail draft on gmail instead of sending it), it's obvious the other side isn't using logic to make the argument (but beliefs, feelings or simply pushing an agenda) so using logic to argue back is pointless.

Those people are a lost cause. Its the same as how do you refute a saying "there's nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". You can tell your facts and statistics, but at the end of the day it means nothing as their understanding is based on beliefs and ideals.

I don't think that's a very fair argument. It makes sense to weigh up the legitimate uses of a technology vs. the illegitimate uses and see if the cost is worth the benefit, and if you are unfamiliar with a certain technology then it might not be obvious what the legitimate use cases are. To me it makes sense to take the time and explain the good things you can do with it and why that's worth a few people being able to abuse the technology.

The problem you face is that decentralization per se brings very little benefit to the table and a lot of baggage that you need to evaluate honestly. If this pitch was to an existing organization like an enterprise the simplest question you are going to face and the hardest one for you to answer is simply "why should be take a risk on a (relatively) unknown and (certainly) more complicated solution when Slack gets the job done?" Unfortunately, I do not think there is a good answer to this question.

I really do not think that anyone is going to reject Matrix as a solution because ISIS used them, they will have a whole host of other perfectly legitimate reasons to reject Matrix. It only makes sense to take on the additional cost burdens of a decentralized solution if your organizational needs require it, otherwise it is a waste of time and you run the risk that your effort becomes one of those shitshow horror stories that turns into someone else's reason not to use a decentralized solution.

Maybe start by taking their concerns seriously?

I mean, I don't think I'm entirely ignorant of the benefits of tech shibboleths like anonymity or decentralization, but, as the internet has matured, I have become more aware of, and concerned about, the drawbacks.

So I would start by making a mental inventory of valid concerns, first. Then, in discussion, you can contrast the pros and cons, rather than evangelize only. That approach is generally the most persuasive.

Having a persona attached to your online activity is a recent phenomena and has the same disadvantages that people in the public sphere need to endure. People seem to suffer a lot more from this, anonymity provides detachment.

You don't talk to the press without PR support. You are not honest in public to limit the angle of attack on your person... there are numerous things that will cause problems other. Ask a celebrity. A non anonymous social network tends to create 2 minute celebrities that can be quite the huge mental load.

This problem is magnitudes more applicable than some terrorist propaganda. I am a net power user, mostly anonymous in decentralized networks. I have never seen ISIS propaganda, child pornography or drug trades. Most people are probably groomed outside of the net.

This reply is pretty much the exact opposite of what I recommend :)

What do you recommend?

In an ideal world, I would try to seriously consider and validate what I can about the other person's pov. If I "steel man" their concerns, and still disagree, hopefully I would work through why in a cooperative way with the other person, and the conclusion would feel mutual, as though it were inevitable.

Not that I'm noble enough to actually manage that, in real life. It's just, what I would do, if I had sufficient self-discipline.

100% of terrorists actively consume water on a regular basis, too.

That is funny and flippant,but obviously non argument. Non terrorist can not avoid water but can avoid decentralized network.

That’s not obviously a non argument.

(Invented though likely stats): 90% of terrorists smoke cigarettes. 98% of terrorists have drank a sugared drink. 99% of terrorists have eaten meat. All of these are avoidable.

And none of these are comparable to Matrix vs Slack or wherever decentralized encrypted network we are talking about.

People can actually distinguish between the two which is the reason that as funny as argument is, it does absolutely nothing.

Based on that logic we should ban all forms of crypto and just live in clear text. It won’t stop the boogeymen, but it’ll make us feel safer.

My point thing is, even dumb people think in much more nuanced terms, so this kind of reductive fake-logic argument does not work. Using it just makes you look like someone who is not able to think about real world.

You may seeming win debate, because people stop to engage. But, you wont convince neither on rational nor on emotional level, because that argument is weak.

I generally don’t try and engage in such conversations. In the case of matrix, terrorism existed long before its existence and other encrypted services were available. Unless you block them all, terrorists will just follow the path of least resistance.

I'm not sure if it would be a logical fallacy, but you could bring up a list of other things that can (and are) be abused for nefarious purposes - cash money, ziplock bags, letters, phones, grannies, etc.

I mean ISIS uses the public internet and Facebook as well and neither of those are getting the same stigma for people being disparaging about Matrix or TOR or whatnot.

Cash money and SIM cards not tied to an identity are being phased out globally.

I haven't heard that argument since I was a teenager, would any serious adult today use the argument that we shouldn't use tool X because other people, including people we don't like use them?

The arguments for gun control are very similar - in addition to “people we don’t like” it also includes “people we do like but don’t handle them safely enough”.

Also, that’s big media’s claim against torrents. And the war on drugs started by Harry Anslinger was basically started along those lines.

It seems “percentage of use by people we don’t like / for purposes we don’t like” plays a big part.

The same way you would defend the www itself.

This is pretty simply the case of these things being tools and them having applicable uses outside negative ones

Reply on news.ycombinator.com