That's why we need to separate the protocol from the UI. There is absolutely no good reason why the different platforms should disallow communication with each other.

I used to use a multiprotocol client, Pidgin, to chat with people on a couple of different platforms. But of course now a lot of chat is on things like Facebook and Google Chat which are supported only by plugins. But even that is still not enough because I will have to have an account on each of the platforms.

Chat really needs to be like email or SMS; you ought not to need an account with the provider of the person you are sending messages to.

You're asking the family member to make their life worse in the immediate term.

If you want people to adopt your thing, it's got to make their life easier, right now, full stop.

I don't understand why having more than one chat app is too much for some people. I use signal, whatsapp, discord, irc, google chat, email and messenger without complaint. I can't force people to use my platform of choice so I have to compromise and use what they do with little to no notice on my end. Sure, I am not happy with this situation but I accept it and move on while keeping an eye out for alternatives.

The network effect is powerful. But we also need to be honest with ourselves. Signal is an objectively worse client than Messages, especially when the average person does not value privacy.

The moderation problem wouldn't have been hard to solve on USENET, it's just that nobody wanted to do it. It could work exactly like moderation does on Mastodon, where each admin is responsible for the content on their server(s). There isn't a technical reason why you couldn't do that, and even give individuals moderation rights on specific lists. Of course, this only affects your particular news server, but it lets the white supremacist post their insane ramblings over on Giganews, while you and I read less toxic version of the thread over on Cozy News. If you don't like the moderation on your server, go find another one.

> that's why peer-to-peer filesharing died

p2p file sharing is still huge, though. Most people just put their seedboxes behind a VPN to avoid getting DMCA notices.

We need something different than "repeal 230" because this is largely believed to be something that will chill speech. Platforms will take down speech out of an abundance of caution.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but we can place two constraints

1. Anyone can say anything online, free speech for individuals

2. Algorithms that act as "editors" are not free speech and should be regulated.

Perhaps the answer is to say that social media algorithms can only be chronological and M0% from your direct network.

Reposts and quotes seem to be one of the core features that enable virality and dog piling. We need to "slow the spread" - to borrow a phase from one of our least favorite times.

Another thing we need is a privacy preserving method for proving humanism online.

I've thought about this a lot. Section 230 essentially differentiates content sites into two categories, which I refer to as:

1. Publishers. Think CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. These are first-party sites;

2. Platforms. Think any social media site. They host user generated content ("UGC").

Section 230 doesn't use this exact language. But what it does is remove the strict liability from UGC for (2). So if I post something defamatory on Facebook, Meta isn't liable as long as they satisfy their obligations for moderation, takedowns, etc.

My opinion is that social media sites are essentially cheating. They're now a third category. They enjoy the benefits of being a platform while acting like a publisher.

Think about it this way: let's say a group of users make 1000 posts supporting Ukraine and 1000 posts supporting Russia in the current war. Posts from some of each might make defamatory of erroneous or intentionally false claims. But I, as the platform, use algorithms to surface certain posts and suppress others through a newsfeed, a recommendation panel or whatever. I can tweak that algorithm to surface the pro-Ukrainian posts or the pro-Russian posts. I am essentially taking a position and acting like a first-party publisher but I don't have strict liability issues.

So I don't think we need to repeal Section 230. I think we need to treat content suppression and promotion as being a publisher because that's what you are.

And they literally exercise more editorial control and reach than any magazine or newspaper editorial board ever did.

Section 230 was a Trojan Horse.

If they want to be treated like an innocent carrier (i.e., telco), they must kill their algorithms.

No news media company writes or says the reports of the journalists they publish or broadcast, but they are nevertheless responsible for that content.

If social media wants to control the algorithmic feed for profit, they must be like any media, "fully responsible for their content", and must be held accountable for it.

You Facebook et al. to be _more_ aggressive in their content takedowns (out of concern for liability)?

You do realize that will accomplish the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve right?

> Apparently, activists need something that is "open, decentralized, and user controlled". Those activists choose to use facebook. That tells me they are at least one of two things:

> 1. Too stupid to make a plan that could possibly work

> 2. Too lazy to execute on a plan that could possibly work

Your comment is a pretty good example of what not to do: society/technology makes good choices harder, so flog individuals about their lack of self-discipline when they don't do yet-another hard thing. People only have so much time and self-discipline, have some empathy.

The only thing the flogging does is give the flogger the chance to feel unjustifiably superior.

> Knowing this is a useful signal. It tells me their judgment is terrible, and I should not listen to them ;)

What you're doing is a generalized method to dismiss anything and anyone:

1. Find a thing.

2. Search for some aspect that isn't perfect. Viciously criticize that aspect.

3. Dismiss the whole thing on account of that aspect.

The only thing that using Instagram tells me about these activists is that they weren't setting out to solve some ideological communication technology problem. They had other priorities.

Above all, activists need something that other people are on.

TFA (and you) are just discounting the power of network effects. Tells me that your judgment is poor and I should not listen to you ;)

This is overly harsh; it starts with the (flawed IMO) perspective that people are dedicated "professional" activists rather than amateurs from many different backgrounds who come together around something they care about and grow/evolve/deppen over time. It makes complete sense that they use tools in front of them AND don't necessarily get -what are quite subtle angles to most - all the issues with their use. It doesn't make them lazy or stupid, but if you have the skills & talents to help with this yet do nothing you might be projecting...

More likely these activists chose the most convenient platform for getting their message out. IG is popular and that makes it an obvious choice. Also keep in mind that activists will generally use what they are already familiar with, and Facebook runs three of the most popular platforms i.e. platforms that activists were probably already using before they became activists.

The only reason activists would switch to something else is if Facebook gives them a reason to do so. I doubt this one incident is enough of a reason.

They need to reach people where they are, so basically all the platforms where people hang out. It's not the activists who are lazy - it's people in general, who continue to use FB even though it is cluttered with ads and other distractions.

It's because the corporations were all banding together to censor their opponents a few years ago, so they got used to the idea that large corporations are your friends. The left took an opportunistic stance on this instead of a principled one, despite the fact that they're the side that on paper is supposedly opposed to letting corporations turn into pseudo-governments.

They don't organize over Instagram. One of many social accounts had issues. Around 3000 communities participated. They are doing fine.

3. they are non-technical people who go where an audience already is

ah yes. Because they don't know technology their movement has no useful information for you and you already know better than all of them.

Amazing.