Freedom of reach IS freedom of speech(pluralistic.net)
pluralistic.net
Freedom of reach IS freedom of speech
https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/10/e2e/
35 comments
This whole argument is moot because it doesn't acknowledge the very obvious elephant in the room: the spam problem.
The article mentions the spam problem repeatedly. It’s one of the main threads.
Does it? It mentions advertising a bit, and I think I could get to what the authors take would be, but it didn’t mention spam as far as I can tell
The word “spam” occurs multiple times. And he discusses the problem of unsolicited messaging in various contexts, without always using the word.
Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
Sorry that you take it like that. I tried to delete my initial comment because I felt it was too curt and I didn't have time then to expand. Yes, spam is quoted several times in the initial article, but it is not "acknowledged" as the hard problem it is, and dismissed as an excuse - which it isn't. I did read the links and it doesn't help, even Doctorow
's argument (which is exactly about how difficult spam fighting is and how it devolves into centralisation and privilege).
Hum, so I did read the entire article, probably should have searched the text for spam though. It still doesn’t feel like heavy engagement to me though. Probably why it slipped my mind:
1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article
Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article
Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
The elephant in the room is the fascist problem.
Before Musk, one of the metrics by which Twitter would evaluate whether to ban someone was: how many trans people will die if we allow this person to keep tweeting? (A competing metric was, regrettably, how big a PR black eye will the far right give us if we ban them, which led to people being banned more slowly than maybe they should have.)
It's a social benefit to muzzle fascists. Fascist ideology plays to our deepest, most visceral hatreds and fears, which means it spreads like wildfire. "A lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" and all that. And when considering whether American standards of "free speech" are universally applicable, do bear in mind that the USA is a shithole banana republic with a far worse fascist problem than most of the rest of the OECD.
Before Musk, one of the metrics by which Twitter would evaluate whether to ban someone was: how many trans people will die if we allow this person to keep tweeting? (A competing metric was, regrettably, how big a PR black eye will the far right give us if we ban them, which led to people being banned more slowly than maybe they should have.)
It's a social benefit to muzzle fascists. Fascist ideology plays to our deepest, most visceral hatreds and fears, which means it spreads like wildfire. "A lie can run halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" and all that. And when considering whether American standards of "free speech" are universally applicable, do bear in mind that the USA is a shithole banana republic with a far worse fascist problem than most of the rest of the OECD.
If everyday citizens cannot be trusted to tell truth from fiction, or to choose democracy over fascism, how can they be trusted to elect their rulers? Why believe in democracy at all?
And while I believe wealth disparity, healthcare, and fascism are all real, sadly neglected problems in the United States, I would strongly caution you against hyperbolic criticisms. You should reflect on what you think of when you think 'banana republic', and in what ways day to day life for the average citizen of the United States are comparable to say, the average citizen of Zambia.
And while I believe wealth disparity, healthcare, and fascism are all real, sadly neglected problems in the United States, I would strongly caution you against hyperbolic criticisms. You should reflect on what you think of when you think 'banana republic', and in what ways day to day life for the average citizen of the United States are comparable to say, the average citizen of Zambia.
When I think of "banana republic" I think of a puppet government installed by corporations to ensure the corporations' profitability -- much like the United Fruit Company did to Honduras and Guatemala, hence the name.
The USA has exactly this kind of government: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
The USA has exactly this kind of government: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
I am familiar with the research cited in that article. I am also familiar with the United States' prolonged history of foreign interference and human rights abuse.
But in the United States I can openly kiss my same-sex husband in public. In Zambia I would be arrested.
The average citizen of the United States still enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Sanitary conditions. High wealth (compared to the rest of the world). Human rights. I find comparisons to banana republics to be hyperbole which ultimately distracts from your arguments.
But in the United States I can openly kiss my same-sex husband in public. In Zambia I would be arrested.
The average citizen of the United States still enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Sanitary conditions. High wealth (compared to the rest of the world). Human rights. I find comparisons to banana republics to be hyperbole which ultimately distracts from your arguments.
It's true. Hateful ideologies make people see everyone who disagrees with them as threats to social order; make people equate expressing an opinion with physical violence. It's concerning that these authoritarian ideologies, in which the enlightened few want to limit the rights of the dumb, uneducated, deplorable many "for their own good," have spread so far and wide, causing so much real-world harm. We need to combat these mind viruses if we want to preserve democracy and civil rights.
Yes that's very clever. History though, is pretty clear about whose boots kick down whose doors when this plays out. Very fine people on both sides though im sure.
History, and boots kicking down doors, are very old. Much older than modern "left" and "right", or whatever "sides" are in fashion where you live today
Opinions are how physical violence starts. Do you think the Myanmar genocide would have happened without a robust system of demonization and distortion beforehand?
Now you might say the only way to counter that is with more speech, but the problem many are voicing is that the modern internet has vastly changed the geometry of society. The graph of social interaction looks different today than it has at any point in human history mostly because of these amplification algorithms. There wasn’t some glorious point in the past where one weirdo with a huge hate of a minority could get their distortive content broadcast for free to the most credulous fraction of the population. Before the social internet your options were to talk to people nearby, mail it to people, or find someone with resources (a newspaper) willing to send it to people. We changed the world. It isn’t crazy that a changed world might need different guardrails to prevent tragedy
Now you might say the only way to counter that is with more speech, but the problem many are voicing is that the modern internet has vastly changed the geometry of society. The graph of social interaction looks different today than it has at any point in human history mostly because of these amplification algorithms. There wasn’t some glorious point in the past where one weirdo with a huge hate of a minority could get their distortive content broadcast for free to the most credulous fraction of the population. Before the social internet your options were to talk to people nearby, mail it to people, or find someone with resources (a newspaper) willing to send it to people. We changed the world. It isn’t crazy that a changed world might need different guardrails to prevent tragedy
If you have empirical proof that the modern internet has directly led to an drastic increase in violence, I would love to see it. Without it, the thesis seems dubious to me.
And in any case, there is one thing we do know, history has demonstrated it repeatedly. Those who beleive that only they are worthy to decide what everyone else can think, are least to be trusted with that power.
And in any case, there is one thing we do know, history has demonstrated it repeatedly. Those who beleive that only they are worthy to decide what everyone else can think, are least to be trusted with that power.
What do you think is the best way to combat them?
Civics education, culture that promotes unifying themes (nationalism, shared responsibility, common heritage,…), and breaking artificial barriers to different social groups mixing (YIMBY, less credentialism…). When you know "someone like that" face-to-face, and see them as part of a shared group, you are more likely to see them as people just like yourself
I'd like to hear more about your idea of unifying themes. Can you give me some more concrete examples. How would nationalism (or did you mean patriotism) and shared heritage work in the United States?
"Nationalism" in the is sense I mean it is, society should encourage people to see their their fellow citizens the same way people in tribal societies see clan members.
Kinship-based clans and tribes are the natural organizations of society—the system that prevailed in prehistory and still prevails in many places today. Problem is, it's not a good system to build a modern internet industrial civilization on top of; leads to corruption and civil war when applied on a too large scale. So you need to replace clan systems, with something that both works at larger scale and reuses the same human instincts that make clans work.
First, you have to ensure no kinship clans can form. To do this society (government, media, organized religion) encourage the nuclear family–exclusive marriage between one man and one woman, who are not close blood relations. Ideally, a significant percentage of these marriages should be between people of different backgrounds—different race, or socioeconomic status, or geographical region, etc). These marital norms are ideal for preventing clans from forming; it's no coincidence that the societies which stick to them the most are the generally the most functional. (For more see "The WEIRDest People in the World" by Joseph Heinrich)
Next, you need to implement nationalism to replace the kinship structures you have systematically destroyed. A nation is an "imagined community"; a group of people who aren't actually family relations, not part of a kiship-based tribe, but it sort of feels like they are, you play on the same instincts.
First, a nation needs territory, with a defined border.
Second, you need a citizenship system; either one is a member of the imagined community, or one is not.
Third, you need a common heritage, so that perfect strangers believe they have something in common. That way you can play on the same instincts that make kinship tribes work, depite the lack of actual kinship.
You'll want a shared history, taught in schools, that provodes an origin story for the nation, and the story has to be postitive and unifying. (For example, in USA, "Founding Fathers," "first Thanksgiving," and "conceived in liberty", not "1619 Project" and "Columbus Day is evil.") Unifying themes should continue throughout the rest of your shared historical narrative. (For example, when dealing with the US Civil War, the narrative should be "we should celebrate that the Union won, preserving the nation and freeing the slaves. But the Confederate soldiers were Americans fighting bravely for their countrymen too, we should honor their memory even as we vow never to repeat their mistake.") None of this means you have to lie about historical facts! History is narrative as much as it is empirical fact, and you can make many choices in the former without betraying the latter.
You will also want a shared literary and artistic culture—classic books, songs, movies, etc everyone knows. You will want a flag, an anthem, a pledge of alleigance, and all that jazz. Shared foods, shared holidays. Ideally a shared language. A dominant religious tradition, if possible (don't infringe on people's freedoms just to try to get this!).
You want good social mobility, you want people of diverse perspectives to mix. "I'm no different than that successful well-off person, with talent hard work and just a bit of luck I can end up just like them." "I'm blessed to have grown up in this community and to have had all these opportunities, but I have friends/family from a different background who aren't so lucky, so when I meet someone who thinks differently than I do, I can understand."
Note: ensuring social mobility does not mean you discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics, like ethnicity or skin color! That destroys national unity. It also doesn't mean you don't enforce immigration laws. Once one is a citizen of the nation one is equal in rights to all the other citizens, but there is no right to join the imagined community if one is not yet a member.
You want low crime, and a fair and effective justice system with rule of law. Citizens should be able to trust each other.
Finally, ideally you want democracy! By participating in the government of the nation, citizens will feel true responsibility, ownership, and belonging. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" makes "the people" real. Elections must not only be free and fair; it should be blindingly obvious that they are so. "Obviously no deficiencies," not "no obvious deficiencies," to quote Tony Hoare. And beyond elections, citizens of all backgrounds and political persuasions must be able to freely debate and discuss the issues.
(Wow this came out really long, sorry)
Kinship-based clans and tribes are the natural organizations of society—the system that prevailed in prehistory and still prevails in many places today. Problem is, it's not a good system to build a modern internet industrial civilization on top of; leads to corruption and civil war when applied on a too large scale. So you need to replace clan systems, with something that both works at larger scale and reuses the same human instincts that make clans work.
First, you have to ensure no kinship clans can form. To do this society (government, media, organized religion) encourage the nuclear family–exclusive marriage between one man and one woman, who are not close blood relations. Ideally, a significant percentage of these marriages should be between people of different backgrounds—different race, or socioeconomic status, or geographical region, etc). These marital norms are ideal for preventing clans from forming; it's no coincidence that the societies which stick to them the most are the generally the most functional. (For more see "The WEIRDest People in the World" by Joseph Heinrich)
Next, you need to implement nationalism to replace the kinship structures you have systematically destroyed. A nation is an "imagined community"; a group of people who aren't actually family relations, not part of a kiship-based tribe, but it sort of feels like they are, you play on the same instincts.
First, a nation needs territory, with a defined border.
Second, you need a citizenship system; either one is a member of the imagined community, or one is not.
Third, you need a common heritage, so that perfect strangers believe they have something in common. That way you can play on the same instincts that make kinship tribes work, depite the lack of actual kinship.
You'll want a shared history, taught in schools, that provodes an origin story for the nation, and the story has to be postitive and unifying. (For example, in USA, "Founding Fathers," "first Thanksgiving," and "conceived in liberty", not "1619 Project" and "Columbus Day is evil.") Unifying themes should continue throughout the rest of your shared historical narrative. (For example, when dealing with the US Civil War, the narrative should be "we should celebrate that the Union won, preserving the nation and freeing the slaves. But the Confederate soldiers were Americans fighting bravely for their countrymen too, we should honor their memory even as we vow never to repeat their mistake.") None of this means you have to lie about historical facts! History is narrative as much as it is empirical fact, and you can make many choices in the former without betraying the latter.
You will also want a shared literary and artistic culture—classic books, songs, movies, etc everyone knows. You will want a flag, an anthem, a pledge of alleigance, and all that jazz. Shared foods, shared holidays. Ideally a shared language. A dominant religious tradition, if possible (don't infringe on people's freedoms just to try to get this!).
You want good social mobility, you want people of diverse perspectives to mix. "I'm no different than that successful well-off person, with talent hard work and just a bit of luck I can end up just like them." "I'm blessed to have grown up in this community and to have had all these opportunities, but I have friends/family from a different background who aren't so lucky, so when I meet someone who thinks differently than I do, I can understand."
Note: ensuring social mobility does not mean you discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics, like ethnicity or skin color! That destroys national unity. It also doesn't mean you don't enforce immigration laws. Once one is a citizen of the nation one is equal in rights to all the other citizens, but there is no right to join the imagined community if one is not yet a member.
You want low crime, and a fair and effective justice system with rule of law. Citizens should be able to trust each other.
Finally, ideally you want democracy! By participating in the government of the nation, citizens will feel true responsibility, ownership, and belonging. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" makes "the people" real. Elections must not only be free and fair; it should be blindingly obvious that they are so. "Obviously no deficiencies," not "no obvious deficiencies," to quote Tony Hoare. And beyond elections, citizens of all backgrounds and political persuasions must be able to freely debate and discuss the issues.
(Wow this came out really long, sorry)
everyone is so entitled nowadays.
My favorite one is "YouTube is censoring me because they demonetized my video!"
Okay, person, so now it's censorship if YouTube broadcasts and hosts your content for free, but fails to give you money for the privilege of doing so?
Okay, person, so now it's censorship if YouTube broadcasts and hosts your content for free, but fails to give you money for the privilege of doing so?
I've never heard anyone say that.
You make it sound as if YouTube is hosting videos out of their good will. They are doing to make money for themselves, which they do, whether or not (for often very arbitrary reasons) decide to demonetize a video and stop the creators from getting any of it.
If a video is demonetized it’s because YouTube doesn’t think advertisers want to advertise on it. They aren’t making money directly off the video either.
Great so now I have to follow all 200M people on Twitter? That’s going to be pretty noisy.
That’s not really what the article is about
Why does this article fail to praise the platforms that do provide non algorithmic feeds (YouTube and Twitter). If the point is more platforms should provide that experience isn’t that contradicted by the YouTube experience where the subscriptions are rarely used.
I think the most interesting point is that maybe if similar investments had gone into tools to curate your own feed it would be of similar quality, but it’s hard to compete with quality and interest signals like people who watch the stuff I watched like this, and as soon as you add that signs you’ve at best built a standard evil recommendation engine with extra levers for the user to control and we all know customization is a great way to ballon the maintenance cost of a feature
I think the most interesting point is that maybe if similar investments had gone into tools to curate your own feed it would be of similar quality, but it’s hard to compete with quality and interest signals like people who watch the stuff I watched like this, and as soon as you add that signs you’ve at best built a standard evil recommendation engine with extra levers for the user to control and we all know customization is a great way to ballon the maintenance cost of a feature
Isn’t YouTube notorious for having one of the most insidious algorithmic feeds, both in terms of driving people to extremist content and serving disturbing content to kids?
YouTube has two feeds. A subscriptions feed which a pure chronological feed of people you follow and an algorithmic feed (home). The fact that people don’t use the subscriptions feed very much (and didn’t even when it was the default) is telling
Agree, but there’s also the question of what happens if you just let it go to the next video, which I believe is independent of the two things you mention and I think is a bigger part of the problem.
His comments about Twitter suggest that he’s not too familiar with how to use it. It’s a simple matter to get the non-manipulated list of tweets, to get exactly what you ask for, which he claims is not on offer:
https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/
This is so rambly that I can scarcely parse it. The title is also linkbait.
The end though has some good questions so maybe a better way to approach this is to say what asks we'd like from a platform.
Here's the contract I would like to see with platforms:
- Ability to whitelist/follow people so that we get their legal messages, even if provably factually incorrect, (optionally with a caveat attached by the platform if it's say a known falsely labeled video that's a deliberate misinformation attempt)
- Ability to blacklist any person or ad
- All ads are marked as ads
- Ability to blacklist subject matters from feeds, and ads
- No entitlement of anybody to be put it any feed for non-subscribers
- Ability to create ones own feed, to which others can subscribe
The end though has some good questions so maybe a better way to approach this is to say what asks we'd like from a platform.
Here's the contract I would like to see with platforms:
- Ability to whitelist/follow people so that we get their legal messages, even if provably factually incorrect, (optionally with a caveat attached by the platform if it's say a known falsely labeled video that's a deliberate misinformation attempt)
- Ability to blacklist any person or ad
- All ads are marked as ads
- Ability to blacklist subject matters from feeds, and ads
- No entitlement of anybody to be put it any feed for non-subscribers
- Ability to create ones own feed, to which others can subscribe
Twitter works exactly this way today, if you use lists and ignore your timeline. See my other comments for instructions.
The article is not exactly about what some commenters think it is. These quotes summarize the thesis a little bit:
> This is called the End-to-End (E2E) principle: a network is E2E if it lets anyone receive any message from anyone else, without a third party intervening. It's a straightforward idea, though the spam wars brought in an important modification: the message should be consensual (DoS attacks, spam, etc don't count).
> The degradation of the internet into "five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of text from the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) meant the end of end-to-end. If you're a Youtuber, Tiktoker, tweeter, or Facebooker, the fact that someone explicitly subscribed to your feed does not mean that they will, in fact, see your feed.
> This is called the End-to-End (E2E) principle: a network is E2E if it lets anyone receive any message from anyone else, without a third party intervening. It's a straightforward idea, though the spam wars brought in an important modification: the message should be consensual (DoS attacks, spam, etc don't count).
> The degradation of the internet into "five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of text from the other four" (h/t Tom Eastman) meant the end of end-to-end. If you're a Youtuber, Tiktoker, tweeter, or Facebooker, the fact that someone explicitly subscribed to your feed does not mean that they will, in fact, see your feed.