←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 1 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
rlyshw ◴[27 May 20 13:27 UTC] No.23322810[source]▶
Honestly just more proof that we need decentralization of the Internet. Handing over control of our digital platforms and identities to 3rd party for-profit companies is not the way the internet should work.
replies(2): >>23322901 #>>23322935 #
bt1a ◴[27 May 20 13:33 UTC] No.23322901[source]▶
Aye but with no one in charge, how can the masses protect themselves against ever-increasing disinformation campaigns?
replies(7): >>23323120 #>>23323161 #>>23323220 #>>23323279 #>>23323310 #>>23324872 #>>23333226 #
ForHackernews ◴[27 May 20 13:58 UTC] No.23323310[source]▶
Mass disinformation campaigns become more expensive and difficult to orchestrate if you have to target them at zillions of decentralized forums, each with their own moderation policies and local cultures.
replies(1): >>23327755 #
1. anigbrowl ◴[27 May 20 18:34 UTC] No.23327755[source]▶
But you don't have to do that, any more than an invading army has to occupy all centers of power at once. And people aren't going to spread across zillions of decentralized forums because people put value on network effects, and larger networks are worth more than small ones.

Thus Facebook isn't one giant blob of people yelling at each other, but has huge numbers of groups where people can meet, while also being able to find/contact almost anyone else. Of course I participate in small decentralized forums relevant to my specific interests/hobbies, but I don't only watch those, and you probably don't either. That would be like only ever reading local news and skipping news about your state/country/international events. You can do that but you'll be putting yourself at a big disadvantage, which most people prefer not to do.