davehtaylor

On a policy level, if we are to bring about a more harmonious Internet (and civil society), we will likely have to tackle wealth inequality and make our political institutions more democratic.

Really burying the lede there.

Another big factor is a lack of moderation, as well as the things that get platformed. People sit and stew in a broth of violent, hateful rhetoric all day long because platforms not only allow that kind of content, but massively profit from it. We seriously need social media companies, podcast apps, YouTube and other video hosting sites, etc. to step the fuck up and deplatform misinformation, disinformation, bigotry, hatemongering, and ragebait. Do not give it light. Do not give it oxygen. Smother it. Ban it. And be extremely aggressive about it. You wanna cry about censorship? Go ahead. But the first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies, and you are also free to setup your own website/service/app/whatever and spew your own bile there.

We further need social media companies to change their algorithms to prevent them from rewarding inflammatory posts. People want to have millions of followers and be big stars on the web, and ragebait, lies, and misinformation are perfect ways to do that. It’s gets you to the top of the heap because there’s no such thing as a “bad” click. You still watched it. You still replied (even if to refute it). And that gave it a boost. That shit has to stop. The entire social landscape is built on top of this inflammatory foundation.

I definitely agree Bluesky is the best alternative right now. It feels like twitter used to, but with much better moderation and no Dorsey (or Musk). And I love things like Aegis, and Feeds.

Threads’ algorithm is extremely aggressive and just viewing a single post will send your entire feed into reccs for that kind of thing. It constantly refreshes, making discovery and finding things extremely difficult. And it’s just Instagram-y. It’s not about building community, it’s just there for throwaway “content.”

But I do agree that Bluesky is doing federation in a way that simplifies it for the users. Non-tech users can just be there and don’t even have to think about it. In fact, most people there (at least across my feeds) have no idea what Federation even is or means. If others want to federate or hang somewhere else and have the knowledge to do that, they can. So they make it much more frictionless.

Because federation is a mess, and doesn’t really solve the problem. There’s no quick elevator pitch that non-technical people can understand, on-boarding is painful, and even if you as the publisher understand it, your audience may not.

Exactly.

Gods this whole “if we outlaw AI only outlaws will have AI” bullshit is so so tiresome and naive

You mean to tell me that the purpose-built disinformation machine that you developed has been used by malicious actors to spread disinformation?!

Yeah I think I agree. The law should be: if you can’t positively confirm it’s clean, you can’t use it.

We should have standards for the treatment of people, and strive not to participate in or reward those who treat people in unacceptable ways.

Totally agree.

It’s not good for a country to create an unfair marketplace. And it is an unfair marketplace when rules which acutely affect only certain people drastically for the good of all, are implemented too quickly to adapt to without major setbacks.

Just saying it should be phased in, to minimize local economic tearing.

Totally disagree.

Fines/tariffs/etc. are just cost of doing business for big business. Slowly enforcing regulation gives companies time to hedge, shuffle, and deflect without actually doing anything. Consequences should be hard and fast. Economies be damned. If an economy can’t stand on its own without companies acting ethically, or with them being punished for it, then it shouldn’t stand at all.

Yes, that’s exactly what I expect. If you can’t verify with 100% certainty that your supply chain isn’t using slave labor, then you stop using that supply chain. And if that costs the company an entire market, or even causes the company to fail, then so be it.

1. The largest code contributors to Linux are corporate contributions
2. Regular people who contribute to OSS do so as a passion project, as a hobby, and have other unrelated jobs that pay the bills. Those people still have to make a living, they’re just not doing it from their software contributions. Journalism isn’t a hobby and you can’t work a day job and still be an effective journalist. News orgs don’t come together as hobby projects.

I’m not defending advertising. I hate it and think it’s ruined the web. I’m just addressing the analogy here wrt Linux.

How do we welcome these contributions while lowering risk?

We don’t. These contributions should not be welcomed. At all. And they bring nothing BUT risk.

Hear fucking hear.

This has nothing to do with realizing the technology promise of the 90s, or “lowering barriers to entry,” or user freedom, and everything to do with clear-cutting the entire technology scene. Handing everything over to LLMs isn’t the way to fight the corps, because they’re going to take those same tools, and destroy incalculable numbers of developer careers, destroy software quality, and anything else they can, just so they can pad their bottom line. And we will be significantly worse off for it.

Also, I am so fucking sick of language like “I don’t want this power to be constrained to a priesthood who know the secret language of coding.” OP sounds like those people who think artists are “gatekeeping” art, and that AI image generators are “democratizing” art. It’s so fucking disingenuous and gross. No one is gatekeeping anything. Anyone can pick up a pencil, or download a free drawing app and make art. Just like anyone can follow countless numbers of free YouTube vids and online tutorials to learn how to be an Android dev. There’s no fucking priesthood or soldier at the gate preventing anyone from doing anything.

This whole article is nothing but AI/LLM apologietics wrapped up in FLOSS language.