FedSearch - Federated network search engine

Mr.Trunk · @mrtrunk

5 followers · 10548 posts · Server dromedary.seedoubleyou.me

Gizmodo: The Top 10 Countries Being Bombarded by Data Breaches https://gizmodo.com/the-top-10-countries-being-bombarded-by-data-breaches-1850701199 #unitedstatesfederalgovernmentdatabreach #scandinavianairlines #databreachesinindia #volodymyrzelenskyy #bankofsouthsudan #technologyoneltd #computersecurity #cybersecurity #katarzynazysk #databreaches #hackergroups #cyberattacks #cyberwarfare #jeneasterly #cybercrime #alexstamos #segimarcen #microsoft #bytedance #anonymous #joebiden #mikedeng #start

#unitedstatesfederalgovernmentdatabreach #scandinavianairlines #databreachesinindia #volodymyrzelenskyy #bankofsouthsudan #technologyoneltd #computersecurity #cybersecurity #katarzynazysk #databreaches #hackergroups #cyberattacks #cyberwarfare #jeneasterly #cybercrime #alexstamos #segimarcen #microsoft #bytedance #anonymous #joebiden #mikedeng #start

Last updated 1 year ago

Original post

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕ · @dredmorbius

2258 followers · 15115 posts · Server toot.cat

@leadegroot There are a few counterarguments, not all of which I agree with, though I mention them here:

Norms modelling. Telling people unambiguously "this is not OK" may change minds. If not of the person the comment is directed to,m then those listening in. (These discussions we're having are public, there are many silent participants.) I've done this, had it done to me, and observed it in interactions between others. I see some merits. The modelling may be followed by a block or ban. Hacker New's moderator, dang, practices this often, and is instructive to study: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
Persuasion. Above and beyond norms, there's actual rational argument. My faith in its capacity has been profoundly shaken over the past decade or so...
Echo chambers. If two groups A & B sever all or most ties, then you end up with two separate communities with little interaction. There are those who suggest that this may not be a Bad Thing...
Some speech is directly threatening. This is what Doctorow's passage refers to mostly: that open/public discourse tends to be dominated by the most aggressive and repressive elements. This is especially true in the case of a major state OR non-state regime of oppression. Examples of the former being, say, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia. Examples of the latter being narcoterrorists, racial/religious supremacists, and organised crime, as in Latin America, the United States, India, and offshore-banking locales. In practice, the distinction between state and non-state may be distinctly indistinct.
Specific communities may face greater threats. The rules for moderating, say, a private school's intranet discussion might be quite different from a service frequented by children or teens in an area strongly influenced by gang activity.
Disempowered groups both need and are threatened by open communications. There's a history going back millennia of slang and in-group language used to discuss issues in a way that the broader community can't understand or has difficulty in following. That this might translate to the Internet is hardly surprising. Groups need to communicate, but also to protect themselves from surveillance, censorship, manipulation, and propaganda. That these needs are inherently in conflict is simply part of the landscape. A concern I've had with the Fediverse is that many people have/are indicating that it is safe, in ways that I strongly suspect it is not. It's been protected to some extent by its small scale and obscurity. Those defences are melting away like fog under a hot sun as we speak. (#AlexStamos has commented on this recently as I've mentioned a few days ago.) #BlackMastodon (and other groups) have been increasingly vocal about the abuse they've found directed toward themselves, and they're not the only group with this issue.

I don't think that the problem can ultimately be solved just through moderation, though that's one tool. Ultimately there need to be political, legal, institutional, and cultural defences and remedies. But moderation can be a part of that.

Put another way: All cultures have limits on free speech, on privacy, cases under which the State can , will, and should investigate individuals and be able to demand information or sanction both action and speech. It's the ones that do so in a principled way that protects the least privileged and strengthens the #CommonWeal (see my pinned toots on that topic) which seem to me to best serve their inhabitants and themselves. And when that value breaks down ... nothing can save you. Certainly not individual initiative and technological fixes.

@woozle @pluralistic

#alexstamos #blackmastodon #commonweal

Last updated 2 years ago

Original post

Doc Edward Morbius ⭕ · @dredmorbius

2175 followers · 15031 posts · Server toot.cat

Stanford Law School - MC Weekly Update 11/21: Bot Populi, Bot Dei | Stanford Law School

@woozle The #AlexStamos comments are in this podcast:

"MC Weekly Update 11/21: Bot Populi, Bot Dei"

https://law.stanford.edu/podcasts/mc-weekly-update-11-21-bot-populi-bot-dei/

Audio: https://cdn.simplecast.com/audio/5efa0ca3-5d41-4fea-b230-5b8358a7cf29/episodes/ef5a9f1a-57ff-47ed-863e-5b5dcf7e133c/audio/1e8b0bdc-ee7c-411f-a656-01f407bc7965/default_tc.mp3 (beginning at 11:45).

Specifically:

I understand people's need for privacy, but this is going to be a huge issue, because the Mastodon community has lots of ideas about privacy that are not backed up by the architecture. A lot of them are really backed up by the fact that nobody was on Mastodon, people were saying "oh, I have private conversations" because there's nobody in the room. Now that everybody's in the room, there's nothing in Mastodon that makes anything private. In fact, Mastodon has much, much, much worse privacy implications and design than Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube, or basically any commercial platform. It's much more public than any of those.

#AlexStamos #Mastodon #Mastodev #privacy #surveillance #belief #reality