On Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 05:18:40 UTC, wigy wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 20:11:06 UTC, Vitor Rozsas wrote:
So... suggestions... Centralized? Decentralized?
I think the centralized wouldn't fit in any country. It would
certainly contain pedophile posts... and any sane country
would shut down the servers immediately...
So... DEcentralized?
Hi! I do not think the debate you have with yourself is
decentralized vs centralized. You are thinking about moderated
vs unmoderated. One is a technical structure, the other is a
social one.
We got used to have moderated channels in media and unmoderated
channels in person. Now the problem we are facing is that we
use these social media platforms for replacing "in person"
communications with friend and family. And the owners of these
platforms are still treating it as "media" that they should
moderate.
But this is not so black-and-white still. When i am talking to
my mother-in-law who has different political biases than me, I
moderate *myself* not to bring up topics that would just divide
us, because I love her enough to tolerate her opinions. What
happens is that we have many social circles in which we have
different topics and ethical norms. This is in our nature and
that is fine. Football fans ventilate their emotions at the
game, but they would not use the same language in their
workplace.
So what I see is that a social media platform should be
decentralized to avoid influence from its owner. It should be
divided into many communities. And each community should be
able to downvote content that is not tolerated in those
circles. And downvoted content should be also available by
others, it should just take more actions to peek into that and
convince yourself that it was indeed something inapt for that
community.
In the digital world, everything seems to be black and white.
But social behaviors are more subtle than that. It is easy to
create a total dictatorial system like facebook, and it is also
easy to create a total anarchist system like Silk Road. And our
goal is to create a system that is similar to in-real-life
communication, which is neither completely free, nor completely
controlled.
You cannot build that system on top of a centralized
architecture where a government can just ask for all data
including a order to keep that secret. People never trusted
their inner thoughts or family conversation onto the
government. And they should not.
This answer is brilliant...it comes out of understanding...deep
thinking
Now...personally I don't think this social media platform
potential hype will last. Very soon it will get out of hand. It
means Facebook, etc. that doesn't offer any quantifiable needed
value will die if they don't innovate out of the social media
realm. Presure from governments and users needs will facilitate
the death of the social media market.
But one thing is certain. Security is becoming a problem. Monies
are becoming digital. There is a rising need for securing digital
value without sacrificing convenience.
Our systems today are not designed for that. Sooner or later
those patches we are making to our systems temporary will get
exhusted.
Its either an innovative use of blockchain-like systems or a
secure-from-scratch sandboxing system.
Blockchain seem interesting for D.
