After several years of writer's block I finally had a longer piece published today:
https://redecentralize.org/blog/2021/01/18/centralization-is-a-danger-to-democracy.html
Many thanks to @redecentralize for carrying it, @tomasino, @[email protected], and Gerben for reviewing and editing it into shape.
The piece has also been published on #VSquare:
https://vsquare.org/centralisation-is-a-danger-to-democracy/
@rysiek @redecentralize @tomasino
Excellent essay.
I do not favor more third-party moderation or more regulation.
Moderation is censorship.
Regulation is centralization.
Give folks the tools to filter their own input, privately on their own device.
Change section 230 so it only applies where ISPs are not acting to filter or moderate, ie, acting in an editorial capacity. They should not get to monetize & censor content while receiving safe haven traditionally reserved for common carriers.
@hhardy01 @redecentralize @tomasino regulation is necessary.
The problem with social media is that it pretends to be both media, and infrastructure. Because "it's media" people are afraid to regulate it, since that would affect all media.
Because "it's infrastructure" it gets to pretend it's "neutral", when it is anything but.
We need regulation to make social media into a standardized environment, which will give us the actual neutral infrastructure. And then treat social media like media.
@rysiek @redecentralize @tomasino
The internet is a voluntary association of Autonomous Systems.
Centralized government censorship of free speech on the net is the antithesis of that.
@hhardy01 @redecentralize @tomasino we will not find common ground here. I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality, for example, without which on higher levels of the OSI model you cannot have this "voluntary association of autonomous systems", because Telefonica will block Skype, as it's eating into their phone line business model.
Governments are not ideal, but are leaps and bounds more accountable than corporations.
@rysiek @redecentralize @tomasino
"Net neutrality" means "common carrier" status, ie no moderation or filtering, with equal access and no prior restraint or censorship or surveillance.
Government regulation of speech content and net neutrality are diametrically opposite and entirely incompatible.
Government content rules means no privacy, no security, no free speech, and no free internet.
You'll have reinvented television.
Television
Frank C. Waldrop, Joseph Borkin
@hhardy01 you explicitly said: "Regulation is centralization."
I gave you an example of regulation that brings more diversity in the network.
You are also ignoring the distinction I made between the "infrastructure" aspect of social media (that needs to be regulated and made into a common-carrier-like system), and "media" aspect that should be treated like all other media.
Not sure why you choose to ignore a rather crucial part of my argument there.
So are you regarding "net neutrality" as being in effect now, or not?
That's really not a well defined term, I prefer to talk about "common carrier" status which has a much longer history and a precise and well-agreed regulatory and legal meaning.
I did specifically talk about the distinction between ISPs who should be bound by common carrier rules, and receive safe haven under 230, and those which monetize and exercise editorial judgement and censorship of content, which should not.
@hhardy01 Net Neutrality is, to some extent, in effect, in some places. #ItsComplicated, and I might have been involved in writing a book about it:
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319264240
"Common carrier" has specific meaning in a specific regulatory environment, while Net Neutrality is specific to a network layer, so to speak, but is more broadly recognized as a particular idea. I'm fine with either.
The ways in which Internet traffic is managed have direct consequences on Internet users’ rights as well as on their capability to compete on a level playing field. Network neutrality mandates to treat Internet traffic in a non-discriminatory fashion in order to maximise end users’ freedom and...
Yours is a thoughtful and well-written essay.
I've been very invested in these internet autonomy and freedom issues for a long time, so please don't take any heat or shade from me personally. I apologize if offense.
But you have one libertarian argument [net neutrality] and one authoritarian argument [government content regulation of speech] and they are at odds as I see it.
National Information Systems and the US Bill of Rights
Henry Hardy
August 18, 1993
This is a really long discussion which deserves a more substantial response.
The character of the net as a free speech forum and the modern equivalent of the soapbox orator on the town square is what I most value and seek to preserve and enhance.
An essential characteristic is the very flat organization. There is Autonomous Systems. Period. ARIN, RIPE, etc. administer but do not rule.
Government gatekeepers will inevitably clamp down in order to assert and leverage their power.
@hhardy01 that's why Government power needs to be checked and accountable.
Problem is, corporate power right now is not, and market will not solve it.
If the protocol is agreed upon and walling the gardens is not legally permitted (the social media equivalent of network neutrality, so to speak), then editorializing done by a particular social media instance is not a problem, since users can move between them. That's the flat organization in action.
Gov't is needed only to ensure the protocol.
But wouldn't that in practice mean we could not site block gab, for instance?
@hhardy01 ah, now we're getting to the meat of the issue! 😃
Such regulations should probably kick in above a certain size of the network (so as to not stifle protocol innovation, small networks, "local bee-keepers forum", etc).
They should also probably be somewhat gradual: with great power over many users comes great responsibility. Large instances would need to meet a higher bar of accountability in their defederation decisions.
Rysiekúr (old account)
Henry Edward Hardy
