Hacker News Reader

Comment by thebigspacefuck | Hacker News Reader

Every time I go looking for one of these open alternatives it’s filled with fringe conspiracy theorists, actual racists, etc. Example is LBRY. Bryan Lunduke says he’s switching off YouTube for LBRY, so I go there to check it out. Top trending video is some white supremacist thing why I shouldn’t forget my ancestry. Search for “how to repair furnace”, second result is video how Epstein is alive. Even Lunduke is taking the opportunity to start his red-pilled politics channel. I have similar story with Mastodon.

The fundamentals are there but the big challenge is no censorship actually makes these smaller platforms something that people don’t want to use.

View on HN

Well, yes. There are only two reasons to use the less popular alternative: ideological preference, which is very rare, or being banned from the #1 service.

> no censorship actually makes these smaller platforms something that people don’t want to use

Invert that sentence and you see why it's happening on the major platforms; deplatforming the deplorables is necessary or they drive normal people and advertisers away.

Human nature eventually turns deplatforming the deplorables into deplatforming anyone I disagree with.

A decentralized Twitter would need decentralized moderation.

> Human nature eventually turns deplatforming the deplorables into deplatforming anyone I disagree with.

I agree with this part, but how does this part:

> A decentralized Twitter would need decentralized moderation.

... not just turn into the first part after a time?

I don't think there will ever be a "truly" decentralized twitter that is popular, because it would necessary have to lack any type of non-first-person moderation, and we as a society would probably not want that.

It would attract types of information that most of us would agree that we do not want around (child porn, terrorism planning, etc) and with any sort of traction, the government would step in to shut it down.

And before you say "it can't be shut down" ... anything can be shut down when you control the means of financial transactions, Internet cables, and a police/judicial system to punish those that go too far out of acceptable bounds.

> not just turn into the first part after a time?

It wouldn't turn into the first part, because "the banned" of some instance could go create their own instance run by their own moderation rules.

> It would attract types of information that most of us would agree that we do not want around (child porn, terrorism planning, etc) and with any sort of traction, the government would step in to shut it down.

If some instance of a federated system is allowing child porn or other criminal content to flourish then they should be shut down. Every instance would need to be held to a baseline standard for dealing with such content.

> If some instance of a federated system is allowing child porn or other criminal content to flourish then they should be shut down. Every instance would need to be held to a baseline standard for dealing with such content.

... so moderation, then?

Yes, moderation. The ideal isn't a system that is un-moderate-able (for the reasons listed, among others), its a system where individuals can choose their moderators based on the differing goals and preferences of the online communities (but within some reasonable bounds/process for limiting rights-violating content like child porn, criminal incitement, etc)

> how does this part not just turn into the first part after a time?

Probably would need a USA govt type setup...a core set of baseline rules (i.e. a constitution), a setup where changes aren't possible unless multiple parties agree (i.e. checks and balances), and a system of voting that doesn't allow a simple majority to make decisions irrespective of minority interests (i.e. an electoral college).

On a scale this large, with so many people performing moderation and guidelines to follow, it most likely just leads to deplatforming the ones that are an unreasonable threat to the comfort of most users and businesses.

There’s an analogy here with programming languages. It’s super hard for a new language to get popular. It might do some things objectively better, but if that doesn’t impact the majority of its users, it needs more or else it ends up populated by ideologues. An exception can sometimes be found in languages with solid interop/foreign function interfaces. Python gets to build on decades of C libraries easily. Likewise with clojure and the JVM. Or Gmail and a standardized email protocol.

So what’s the analogue for social networks? Tim Berners Lee’s pods? Would it be an app that pulls from and pushes to Twitter/insta/fb in addition to its own servers? That’s how apple’s iMessage has done so well. It falls back to SMS if the other person isn’t an adopter of their system.

New systems that can take advantage of existing network effects seem so much more likely to gain popularity. And we really need more of the open interop with social media.

Using a decentralized social network is currently like using email without a spam filter.

I have an idea of creating a plugin to a decentralized social network that acts as a moderator. The plugin will work on behalf of the user, compared to current moderation which acts on behalf of the platform. Different users can select either different moderators or different settings for the same moderators. Moderating could be a mix of AI and human flagging. Moderating could also include more editorial work such as suggesting people to follow.

I think you're right. A little surprised about Mastodon because I've only heard that from people I follow on twitter who tend to not be crazy, but I guess it makes sense.

I have an idea for an app whose primary motivation is offering a comment section for websites that don't normally have comments or have them disabled (yes, this idea is old as dirt and has been tried many times).

The part I'm really struggling with is how one would market such an app without targeting free speech absolutists and nutters, despite it being really useful for everyone. It seems like the moment you start highlighting free speech as a feature you become a magnet for the absolute worst kind of people.

This is the one thing that I still miss from Google Reader. It got discussing articles right. Specifically, what it got right is that you discuss them with a small group of direct acquaintances.

I think that any attempt to produce something that works like the comments section of a newspaper website will invariably produce something that works like the comments section of a newspaper website.

Yes, I am aware of the irony of saying this in the comments section of a website called Hacker News.

So don’t highlight free speech as a feature since you clearly do not understand the market for whom that feature is important (ie: free speech absolutists and conspiracy theorists).

What the people who actually value free speech want is sensible, non-political moderation where the free speech absolutists and nutters are muzzled but the minorities complaining about oppression are not.

> an app whose primary motivation is offering a comment section for websites that don't normally have comments

Disqus has done this to a fairly wide extent. They allow site maintainers to moderate comments IIRC.

I think this is more about something like running a chrome extension to have comments without the site owner's involvement.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chrome+extension+comments+fo...

Ah, the value of a social network is in what the users bring. If the first users post crap which attracts more users who would post more crap, then that's not the network you want. Quite important that Facebook's first users are Harvard undergrads, and Twitter recruited "influencers" as their first users, those are the groups that people would want to join.

I think there needs to be a way of filtering out posts by certain users. Allow people to make lists to filter out the crazies, so other users if they want can use them.

And/or use an algorithm to classify posts, and allow users to pick and choose what kinds of stuff they want filtered.

Then by default have most of these filters on, but you can disable some of them if they go too far.

The problem for permissive alt-platforms is that if the mainstream platforms expand their definition of bannable undesirables (call them witches for short) then all the witches will go to whatever platforms are still available to them (the permissive ones). This article details nicely how it all plays out:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...

>The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.

>...

>The equilibrium is basically what we see now. The neutral gatekeeper institutions lean very liberal, though with a minority of conservative elites who are good at keeping their heads down and too mainstream/prestigious to settle for anything less. The ghettos contain a combination of seven zillion witches and a few decent conservatives who are increasingly uncomfortable but know there’s no place for them in the mainstream.

https://gitlab.com/spritely/ocappub/blob/master/README.org is an interesting way forward.

If you can create your own node on your own server with your own rules, it doesn't matter (so much) if there's a short-term infestation of disagreeables elsewhere.

Haven't recent times shown that allowing a bubble of disagreeables to congregate doesn't look like the best idea?

People don't seem to be thinking through the "NO CENSORSHIP" goal. They want to go to a site where Trump can tell people to install "freedom software" with a link to Ransomware or Malware?

I always fail to understand what motivates someone that likes censorship, hates Free Speech, and generally cannot stand to coexist with anyone too diferent from himself...to go looking for an alternative medium without censorship, supportive of Free Speech, and where those way different from himself congregate? When so many options like Reddit, Quora, Raddle, Fakebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc., exist almost exclusively for 'normies', why not stay at the echo chambers dedicated to them, where all the undesirables have been banished and deplatformed? What's the irresitable lure of these alternatives?

Funny, I get the same impression when I go to Twitter, it’s full of far left loonies and communist sympathizers, not to mention raging cancel culture mobs, so brainwashed they disown their families for supporting Trump.

And the worst thing is that Twitter is based in Silicon Valley, with many of its key employees belonging to the same herd.

There must be an alternative platform.

I would encourage you to answer in good faith:

1. What would make someone “disown their families for supporting Trump”? What are their motivations? How are they arriving at the conclusion they need to do this? Does the disowned family member supporting trump play any responsibility in this engagement? What values do you hold dear to yourself that might make you disown another family member if violated?

2. When you call someone a “moronic sheep…” Do you think that person feels like a sheep? Do you think they might see you as a sheep for being apart of a different “herd”? I would encourage you to explain why they are moronic sheep rather than taking the mental shortcut of calling them a moronic sheep and therefore unworthy of having valid opinions.

3. You summarize behavior as: “‘orange man baaad’ chants.” Why do you think they see him as bad? Why do you think they “chant” it? Is there anything you say, that they might characterize as a chant?

Your post pretty much says “I want a place that doesn’t have people that think differently,” “I want a place where I won’t be challenged,” “I want a place without sheep,” “I want a place with people that think the same as me.”

Do you think what you’re actually looking for is an echo chamber?

1. 4 years on non-stop propaganda by left wing owned mainstream media, amplified by online echo-chambers, will do that to you. Especially if the other side is labeled all shades of evil, like ‘racists’ and ‘fascists’ indiscriminately and without evidence. Slander is a powerful political weapon.

2. "Moronic sheep" is a poetic way to describe people who tend to trust lies they've been force-fed, without questioning. I blame the lack of critical thinking, groupthink, and deep internalized 'herd following' attitude nurtured from schools to colleges. Which, btw, a possible reason for larger Trump support among people who haven't passed through the brainwashing machine of the US college/academia.

I guess anti-individualism is the best way to call it. I always refer to excellent "Excellent Sheep" book by William Deresiewicz who succinctly described just what I experienced first hand during years of Ivy League un-education.

3. see 1.

if we can't get free speech on BigTech platforms then we shall part our ways, each stuck in its own 'safe space'. As for me personally I prefer swimming against the current.

I don't think you answered the questions in good faith, and I think I responded to you in good faith.

If a sheep is someone who: "tends to trust lies they've been force-fed, without questioning." Then what is a good measure of who is a sheep or not? I questioned your beliefs, and you gave me back lines from your echo chamber verbatim.

Here's some good questions for you:

   "What are some of the weak points of my belief system?"
   "What might I be wrong about?"
   "What is a good faith summary of the other person's argument?"

If you're acting in good faith, those shouldn't be even remotely hard questions. If those are hard questions and can't be answered directly, you should re-examine who is a sheep.

Nah, I think I answered it alright , why don’t you go after leftist media and their propaganda , ask WaPo to provide a “good faith summary of other person argument” when they accuse ALL Trump supporters of being racist ‘white supremacists’ indiscriminately and without evidence on daily basis for years, inciting witch hunts and riots.

What you’re doing is called demagogy, or worse, sealioning.

But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, just apply your high standards of good faith argument to left wing media and their culture of political ‘discourse’, lmao. I’m just a lowly Trumper.

Your clear lack of desire of ability to engage with some very reasonable and intelligent points is exactly why Trump supporters are frequently characterized this way.

You're a sheep if you blindly follow a small number of news outlets that lean very far to one side and spend most of your time surrounded by people with similar views. (This goes either way, of course)

Not all Trump supporters are white supremacists, but I haven't seen any examples of people demonstrating that sort of behaviour and ideology who aren't Trump supporters. That should be food for thought.

I’m surrounded by liberals and their bs, just like you. My only source of disinformation is liberal/mainstream media, just like yours. And I haven’t seen as many lies as I’ve seen last year, and this one, oh God.

I’m ‘radicalized’ by you, dear liberal people, and I’m one of the 75M.

> I’m surrounded by liberals and their bs

If everything around you smells like shit, check your shoe.

I wish you were right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com