Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes]

I always bitch about “Western Civilization.” 

Except for what has come to be called “Humanismo Solidario.” Sorry, apparently 
the English language doesn’t have a proper equivalent of the word “Solidario.” 
Dictionaries throw darts in the dark with “supportive,” “caring,” and even 
(Google Translate) “solitary (autocorrected by Apple to “solitary” Q.E.D. :D).” 
But the American Heritage Dictionary comes up empty when asked for a definition 
of “solidary,” so it’s all “hearsay” which is not bad but it shows the pathos 
of the English Language as Utilitarian par excellence, which in modern times 
translates to “what’s in it for me?” - NOTHING. what’s in it for me in being a 
humanista solidario is all to the other. Not to me, except that “warm and fuzzy 
feeling” of knowing that I’m “doing the right thing” and helping others, 
especially when they’re at the bottom of the ruthless pyramid of the modern 
world. This “Humanismo Solidario” has grown considerably in modern times. 
Recently I read there were 1.2 Million plus non-profits in the US alone. Lots 
of volunteers (humanismo solidario by the masses) even weeding out those 
“causes” that are really not kosher at all... 

Going back to “Humanismo Solidario:" “humanism” that is unencumbered by Ivory 
or Black towers, but rather roams free and engages in direct action helping 
oppressed peoples.

Translate that to an online platform and we’re cool. None of today’s social 
media,  pandering advertising and “big data analytics" to the biggest bidder 
and flashing those bidders the zillions of views they’d get (exhibitionists 
them all), qualify. No matter how many “codes of ethics” they write and try to 
enforce.

The only sensible proposal I’ve read so far is to take a supposedly 
“struggling” social media platform like Twitter and make it open source and 
public. No Ads.

> On Jan 23, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Yosem Companys  wrote:
> 
> This is an important discussion. I'm so glad to see so many people weighing 
> in.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Richard Brooks  > wrote:
> >> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists?
> >
> > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently
> > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing
> > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible
> > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights
> > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need
> > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing
> > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to
> > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.
> >
> You are begging the question. Who makes those rules?
> If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech
> (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed.
> 
> How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority?
> And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements
> permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a
> constitution written in large part by the US,
> no.)
> 
> Saying that it is possible to define a set of rules,
> ignores the issue of who defines the rules and
> how minority rights are protected.
> 
> And allowing a majority mob-rule is not an answer,
> either.
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech 
> . Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
> zakwh...@stanford.edu .
> 
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
> zakwh...@stanford.edu.

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[carlo von lynX]

> > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently
> > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing
> > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible
> > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights
> > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need
> > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing
> > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to
> > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:08:32PM -0500, Richard Brooks wrote:
> You are begging the question. Who makes those rules?
> If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech
> (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed.
> How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority?

Majority is a word I learned to dislike in recent years.
I like consensus. Not a perfect consensus, because that
is too hard to achieve, but something like a 80 or 90%
consensus. I am bumping into entire political groupings
that are trying out such a path of consensus to avoid all
the failures of majority decision-making, so it seems to
be part of a general philosophical development of the
new digital human society.

Also, there are methods that give space to minorities
without at the same time giving them the power to
dominate all discourse. Consider that our current
political system is dominated by minorities that can
pay for lobbyism etc. So the method it takes must be
well balanced, to ensure the *rights* of minorities
without becoming unjust.
 
> And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements
> permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a
> constitution written in large part by the US,
> no.)

In the US it is legal to make pro-nazi statements
in your home or pub, but that doesn't mean that it
is permitted to do so within an assocation of
people that have agreed on stricter rules, like
the respect of human and civil rights. Therefore,
if the group first establishes that statements
disrespectful of others aren't permissible, such
statements would not get published on the platform.

Actors who tend to employ offensive rhethorical
methods would have to learn to refrain themselves,
which in my experience works suprisingly fast.
The best way not to have any unpleasant exchange
with moderators is to respect the rules.

Should the moderators however be in error, blocking
a statement that doesn't actually infringe prior
agreed rules, then there must be a way to appeal to
a higher court. The net needs to learn to practice
checks and balances in everyday online discourse,
I think - because automated or collective justice
systems do not actually produce justice.

So, does that sound like a plan?

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Yosem Companys]

This is an important discussion. I'm so glad to see so many people weighing
in.

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Richard Brooks  wrote:

> >> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists?
> >
> > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently
> > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing
> > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible
> > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights
> > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need
> > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing
> > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to
> > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.
> >
> You are begging the question. Who makes those rules?
> If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech
> (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed.
>
> How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority?
> And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements
> permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a
> constitution written in large part by the US,
> no.)
>
> Saying that it is possible to define a set of rules,
> ignores the issue of who defines the rules and
> how minority rights are protected.
>
> And allowing a majority mob-rule is not an answer,
> either.
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/
> mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change
> password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu.
>
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Richard Brooks]

>> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists?
> 
> If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently
> well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing
> damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible
> with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights
> etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need
> moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing
> their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to
> really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.
> 
You are begging the question. Who makes those rules?
If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech
(let alone transgender) would have been suppressed.

How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority?
And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements
permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a
constitution written in large part by the US,
no.)

Saying that it is possible to define a set of rules,
ignores the issue of who defines the rules and
how minority rights are protected.

And allowing a majority mob-rule is not an answer,
either.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[carlo von lynX]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:01:30PM -0500, Richard Brooks wrote:
> A general concern should be who does the regulation and
> to what ends? The UN is questionable, since the majority
> of its members are autocrats. The non-autocrats are
> typically controlled by the large corporations.

Us. We can write the legislation and if it makes sense
to large chunks of society we can demand its enactment.

Just some years ago people like me wrote the law proposal
on how to handle the former airport of Tegel in Berlin.
And then the path from petition to referendum finally
made that proposal the current law.

I hear we have similar mechanisms in the EU. And if you
consider how TTIP fell because of public pressure, even
US Congress can listen to people from the Internet, if
they aggregate.

> I think the question of how to have a globally open
> forum for legitimate discourse is probably unsolvable,
> since I do not think we can have a consensus on what
> "legitimate discourse" is.

There are many groups working on such a definition and
I guess out of desperate need to do something some of
their work will be adopted. I for instance have gained
experience in doing liquid democratic organization and
have learned how to design a justice system so that
people in a group don't jump at each other's throats
as they try to get along.

> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists?

If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently
well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing
damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible
with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights
etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need
moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing
their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to
really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.

> I wonder, honestly, if an abuse resistant platform
> is possible. Also, I wonder if it would be desirable.

There are plenty of other spaces where you can speak
your mind in disrespectful ways of others etc, but in
a public democratic debating platform a democratic
structure is necessary.

> And, I have no good answers to any of these questions.

I've been researching these topics for years now,
that's why I dare to speak so matter-of-factly about
things I seriously learned.

On 01/22/2018 08:53 PM, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes wrote:
> I don’t believe that to betray democracy will ever be “technically 
> impossible”

Depends on the degree of betrayal. I am saying that
we can have an Internet that by design is resistant
to surveillance and data mining. Therefore apps will
have to be paid by micropayment and the apps will not
be able to send user data back to the manufacturer -
they only exchange data with your social network in
a way you expect.

That's the other topic I've been working on since 2010
now, so I am kind of confident that this is real.

> It all boils down to ETHICS, not TECHNOLOGY.

In the early years of the net there was this meme that
technology can not fix social problems. It is profoundly
wrong. Technology can implement not only social norms,
it can even enact laws. I learned that as early as 1997
when I deployed a chat system that worked differently
than IRC. It was by design unsuited for operator wars etc.

> And ALL the “Social Network” COMMERCIAL platforms are NON-DEMOCRATIC BY 
> DESIGN. They’re basically no different in that respect than traditional 
> (corporate-controlled) broadcast stations.

Exactly. That is what the law would change. It would
require all social networks to operate out of your
personal device and have no central place of data
aggregation.


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
 http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
  irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
 https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes]

I don’t believe that to betray democracy will ever be “technically 
impossible”

It all boils down to ETHICS, not TECHNOLOGY.

And ALL the “Social Network” COMMERCIAL platforms are NON-DEMOCRATIC BY DESIGN. 
They’re basically no different in that respect than traditional 
(corporate-controlled) broadcast stations.

Regards / Saludos / Grato

Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 9:52 AM, carlo von lynX  
> wrote:
> 
> No need to follow the link, here are the interesting snippets:
> 
>> Now, we’re as determined as ever to fight the negative influences and ensure 
>> that our platform is unquestionably a source for democratic good.
> 
> Just like democracy is no longer a democracy if somebody could
> decide to switch off, say, separation of powers or verifiability
> of vote, democracy is no longer a democracy if one corporation
> has the choice on whether to be a "source of democratic good" or
> secretively possibly unvoluntarily be not so. Therefore, the fact
> that Facebook has achieved such a role is unconstitutional.
> Actually, the way the whole Internet is easy to eavesdrop and do
> big data analysis upon is making every democracy whose voters use
> it struturally a post-democracy. How long until we regulate this?
> 
>> Our role is to ensure that the good outweighs the forces that can compromise 
>> healthy discourse.
> 
> Incorrect. No online platform should have this much power to
> make such decisions.
> 
> Further articles comment on the good and bad of social media,
> entirely neglecting that a properly regulated Internet would
> eliminate the risks of social media and only leave us with
> the good aspects of it, so there is zero reason to continue
> dealing with the threats of technology as if the benefits are
> inevitabily interweaved. That is a fallacy, albeit a
> remarkably popular one.
> 
> So do yourself a favor and skip reading those articles, they
> are only trying to convince you that Facebook is a reasonable
> company to entrust with the power to corrupt democracy, as if
> the Malvinas incident in 2009 hadn't already proven the opposite.
> 
> You can have all the apps and Internet fun you like, but to
> betray democracy must be technically impossible. Such an
> abuse-resistant Internet is possible. Society has to care
> and to regulate.
> 
> If anything of that sounds wrong or exaggerated, then you are 
> missing some of the clues. I can fill you in.
> 
> -- 
>  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
> http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
>  irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
> https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
> zakwh...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes]

>  to betray democracy must be technically impossible

This sentence is so UNTRUE! 

The very fact that what appear like very democratic forums (Facebook, Twitter, 
Instagram, etc.) are basically ruled by marketing, which is the same thing as 
“money in politics,” in the much more impactful context of the daily life of 
the planet, makes the sentence above DOUBLESPEAK.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Richard Brooks]

> 
> You can have all the apps and Internet fun you like, but to
> betray democracy must be technically impossible. Such an
> abuse-resistant Internet is possible. Society has to care
> and to regulate.
> 

A general concern should be who does the regulation and
to what ends? The UN is questionable, since the majority
of its members are autocrats. The non-autocrats are
typically controlled by the large corporations.

I think the question of how to have a globally open
forum for legitimate discourse is probably unsolvable,
since I do not think we can have a consensus on what
"legitimate discourse" is.

Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists?
How do you fact check? If you exclude antifa and
racists (I am not drawing an equivalency here, I
am just citing groups that would be likely to
be excluded), wouldn't you be excluding the
dis-satisfied groups that are disturbing democratic
norms?

I wonder, honestly, if an abuse resistant platform
is possible. Also, I wonder if it would be desirable.

And, I have no good answers to any of these questions.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[carlo von lynX]

No need to follow the link, here are the interesting snippets:

> Now, we’re as determined as ever to fight the negative influences and ensure 
> that our platform is unquestionably a source for democratic good.

Just like democracy is no longer a democracy if somebody could
decide to switch off, say, separation of powers or verifiability
of vote, democracy is no longer a democracy if one corporation
has the choice on whether to be a "source of democratic good" or
secretively possibly unvoluntarily be not so. Therefore, the fact
that Facebook has achieved such a role is unconstitutional.
Actually, the way the whole Internet is easy to eavesdrop and do
big data analysis upon is making every democracy whose voters use
it struturally a post-democracy. How long until we regulate this?

> Our role is to ensure that the good outweighs the forces that can compromise 
> healthy discourse.

Incorrect. No online platform should have this much power to
make such decisions.

Further articles comment on the good and bad of social media,
entirely neglecting that a properly regulated Internet would
eliminate the risks of social media and only leave us with
the good aspects of it, so there is zero reason to continue
dealing with the threats of technology as if the benefits are
inevitabily interweaved. That is a fallacy, albeit a
remarkably popular one.

So do yourself a favor and skip reading those articles, they
are only trying to convince you that Facebook is a reasonable
company to entrust with the power to corrupt democracy, as if
the Malvinas incident in 2009 hadn't already proven the opposite.

You can have all the apps and Internet fun you like, but to
betray democracy must be technically impossible. Such an
abuse-resistant Internet is possible. Society has to care
and to regulate.

If anything of that sounds wrong or exaggerated, then you are 
missing some of the clues. I can fill you in.

-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
 http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
  irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
 https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

[liberationtech] Facebook Asks - Hard Questions: Social Media and Democracy

[Steven Clift]

See:

http://po.st/facebookhardquestionsdemocracy


Discuss:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/opengovgroup/permalink/2063068567258062/


Steven Clift  -  Executive Director, E-Democracy.org
   cl...@e-democracy.org  -  +1 612 234 7072
   http://twitter.com/democracy

Join in: http://facebook.com/groups/opengovgroup
Digital engagement for your org via E-Democracy:
   http://po.st/engageclift
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.