| |
| ▲ | FabHK 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > a decentralized system resistant to propaganda techniques That would be nice. What's becoming increasingly clear is that the current system (optimizing for engagement) is not that. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The current system is centralized control. You don't get that if people pay a small pittance for hosting their own stuff the same as they currently pay for internet access or phone service, and thereby remove the man in the middle using control over the network effect to maximize revenue extraction. |
| |
| ▲ | Treegarden 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, just as the phrase goes "your terrorist is my rebel," one could say "your propaganda is my information." That's exactly why a decentralized system matters. It doesn't just resist capture by a single authority, it allows competing narratives to exist side by side. What one group sees as misinformation, another might see as essential context. The goal shouldn't be to eliminate bias entirely, but to prevent any one group from controlling the flow of all information. | | |
| ▲ | warkdarrior 4 days ago | parent [-] | | And how do you prevent the bad actors from flooding the decentralized systems with propaganda? Nowadays there are millions of bad actors each sending one propaganda message, all slightly different. When any other criteria is not reliable (like source of information, or lack of bias), volume of message distribution (how often that and related messages pop up in the feed) becomes the last indicator people use. | | |
| ▲ | account42 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Nowadays there are millions of bad actors each sending one propaganda message Are there? It sounds like you consider the general public to be your enemy in which case you absolutely should have no say in how a democracy is run. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | amelius 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, the question is what such a system would look like. E.g. would there be limitations of free speech? | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course not. That shouldn't even be possible in a properly designed system. Rather what you need is a means for propaganda to be rapidly identified and refuted with counterarguments in a way that its would-be victims can see it. | | |
| ▲ | account42 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | See the problem with that is that it makes it harder to spread your own propaganda. Can't have people questioning your Science, so out goes the independent thought and instead everyone is trained to defer to authority. That's why we are where we are, because "both sides" want to have that control, they just want it for themselves and not those that disagree with them. | |
| ▲ | amelius 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the problem with such an approach is that the majority of people will stop reading if the arguments become too complicated. This is how populism works. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I think the problem with such an approach is that the majority of people will stop reading if the arguments become too complicated. If you have a centralized system with Sean Hannity getting on the television and saying things which are clear, simple and wrong, you still have the exact same problem. Decentralization can only improve it because then it's not only him and the more complicated truth is at least available instead of the simple lie being the only thing on offer. And this is what I mean by "in a way its would-be victims can see it". People don't have time to investigate every throw-away simple lie, but it gives you the opportunity to sample. You follow Bob and he says a bunch of stuff and every time there is a whole complicated discussion that you usually don't read because you don't have time. But once in a while you do. If every time you do, it turns out Bob is right, you can be more confident that the stuff he says is usually right even when you don't have time to check. If every time you do, it turns out Bob is wrong, the opposite. It provides the opportunity to evaluate credibility. But that only works if you have a system where anybody can reply to anything and actually be seen. If you have a system where a central gatekeeper can make criticism and counterarguments invisible, you lose. | |
| ▲ | f001 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Additionally, it’s usually more effort to refute something than to state something, especially as it seems there is little requirement for proof when making the statement. | |
| ▲ | account42 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no way you can square that viewpoint with the concept of democracy. Either you trust that the general population can make rational informed decisions you must give up the pretense that they can rule over themselves. | |
| ▲ | const_cast 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, exactly. We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging. The reason someone like Trump can rise to power and consolidate said power is because he speaks simple and lies work in a decentralized system. Populist messaging is built on the fact that humans are naturally drawn to simple solutions and emotional responses. 90% of the time throughout American and European history, if you just tell people "this is ethnic/racial group X's fault!", that works. | | |
| ▲ | account42 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging. Only if you ignore everything about what got Hitler elected. "Populists" winning is ALWAYS a result of the status quo being unacceptable to the general population. If the establishment is unwilling to fix that then they deserve to be removed from government. Free flow of information isn't responsible for that. | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US has decentralized speech on paper. Anybody can make a website, but then Google won't surface obscure blogs no matter how relevant they are. Anybody can make an account on a centralized social media platform, but that isn't the same as being seen, which depends on the whims of whoever owns it or the politicians threatening them. Meanwhile the centralized platforms then have the incentive to maximize engagement and the power to structure things that way. And that's how you get Trump, because polarization drives engagement. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lurker919 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe it just needs provenance. So bad actors can't flood the system. Counter to the above is that, your bad actor may be my leader. People like convenience. When someone is expressing what you want to say, in a better and smarter way, you just reshare/retweet them. And the 'other side' will feel like your leader is a 'bad actor' who is flooding the system. So even the method of resharing/retweeting needs some sort of provenance/single use only. So you can 'agree' with your thought leader, but they shouldn't be able to mass manufacture consent. Since you might even reshare 'fake news' since you generally trust your leader. It's messy, not sure what that would look like - every post that starts getting traction needs to be fact checked? Community Notes on X is a step in the right direction maybe. |
|
|
