←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.627s | source
Show context
heinrichhartman ◴[] No.23221288[source]
This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies:

If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce.

If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They have every right to kick you out if they don't like your face. It's their property. You are a guest.

I think we need constituted digital public spaces and platforms with:

- democratic footing (users are in charge)

- public ownership

- division of power (politicians =!= judges =!= police)

- effective policing

In such a system it would be for independent courts to decide which Apps can be distributed and which not. Those courts would be bound to a constitution/body of law, which applies to all parties a like.

Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, you will have to give up some privacy. But you will be a citizen in a society, and not a stranger playing in a backyard.

Maybe the current platforms can be coerced into a system which approximates the above. But I have my doubts. I hope in 200years people will have figured this out, and will look back to this age as the digital dark ages.

replies(17): >>23221309 #>>23221497 #>>23221572 #>>23221741 #>>23221897 #>>23222642 #>>23222646 #>>23222671 #>>23223166 #>>23223727 #>>23224123 #>>23224539 #>>23228931 #>>23229210 #>>23230754 #>>23231344 #>>23236648 #
Thorentis ◴[] No.23230754[source]
Putting users in charge does not solve censorship problems. The majority opinion - if it is in favour of censorship - will censor competing opinions.

Public ownership does not solve censorship. See: the CCP.

Effective policing does not solve censorship. The police will be tools of whoever and whatever is funding them.

The only way to combat censorship is through decentralised and distributed platforms that are made publicly immune to takedowns, censorship, and prosecution.

It astounds me that people are happy to accept that free speech in the US only applies in public spaces, while handing over control of the best places for spreading information to private companies. What's the point in that? "Free speech only applies to public space! Private companies can censor who they want! proceeds to make sure the information superhighway is entirely owned and controlled by private companies".

But public control doesn't work either. We've already seen government around the world censoring information in the "public interest".

Decentralisation, and distributism are the only ways.

replies(2): >>23234640 #>>23235437 #
1. gowld ◴[] No.23234640[source]
CCP is not public ownership. CCP is a minority political party that subjugates the public through violence.
replies(1): >>23275272 #
2. anewdirection ◴[] No.23275272[source]
It is a bit of both. Sure, 'public' becomes a bit tenious (Perhaps 'government' is a better descriptor?), but still applies. Other truly communist nations have had similar issues with despotism however. And as is parroted so often, a government is where the state has a monopoly on violence. The trick is to limit the rights and abilities of the state to do so without just cause while allowing minority opinions to flurish.