On Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 05:18:40 UTC, wigy wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 20:11:06 UTC, Vitor Rozsas wrote:
So... suggestions... Centralized? Decentralized?

I think the centralized wouldn't fit in any country. It would certainly contain pedophile posts... and any sane country would shut down the servers immediately...

So... DEcentralized?

Hi! I do not think the debate you have with yourself is decentralized vs centralized. You are thinking about moderated vs unmoderated. One is a technical structure, the other is a social one.

We got used to have moderated channels in media and unmoderated channels in person. Now the problem we are facing is that we use these social media platforms for replacing "in person" communications with friend and family. And the owners of these platforms are still treating it as "media" that they should moderate.

But this is not so black-and-white still. When i am talking to my mother-in-law who has different political biases than me, I moderate *myself* not to bring up topics that would just divide us, because I love her enough to tolerate her opinions. What happens is that we have many social circles in which we have different topics and ethical norms. This is in our nature and that is fine. Football fans ventilate their emotions at the game, but they would not use the same language in their workplace.

So what I see is that a social media platform should be decentralized to avoid influence from its owner. It should be divided into many communities. And each community should be able to downvote content that is not tolerated in those circles. And downvoted content should be also available by others, it should just take more actions to peek into that and convince yourself that it was indeed something inapt for that community.

In the digital world, everything seems to be black and white. But social behaviors are more subtle than that. It is easy to create a total dictatorial system like facebook, and it is also easy to create a total anarchist system like Silk Road. And our goal is to create a system that is similar to in-real-life communication, which is neither completely free, nor completely controlled.

You cannot build that system on top of a centralized architecture where a government can just ask for all data including a order to keep that secret. People never trusted their inner thoughts or family conversation onto the government. And they should not.

This answer is brilliant...it comes out of understanding...deep thinking

Now...personally I don't think this social media platform potential hype will last. Very soon it will get out of hand. It means Facebook, etc. that doesn't offer any quantifiable needed value will die if they don't innovate out of the social media realm. Presure from governments and users needs will facilitate the death of the social media market.

But one thing is certain. Security is becoming a problem. Monies are becoming digital. There is a rising need for securing digital value without sacrificing convenience.

Our systems today are not designed for that. Sooner or later those patches we are making to our systems temporary will get exhusted.

Its either an innovative use of blockchain-like systems or a secure-from-scratch sandboxing system.

Blockchain seem interesting for D.

Reply via email to