This is like saying "E-Mail cannot stop X mails" or "XMPP cannot stop X chats", which is pretty obvious. The whole point of a decentralized service like Diaspora is that it can't be completely censored. Internet providers could partially block the access to pods that don't censor this kind of content, but then they could setup their own Diaspora pod in a Tor hidden services...
I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0]) they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.
I know they could just setup their own Pod but these values are what makes them any different from the likes of Twitter and I would've expected them to stand by them a bit more.
> I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0]) they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.
Yeah that's probably because the ISIS is known for suicide bombings, cutting off heads, video taping it so that the families and friends of the victim can see how gruesome their loved one died, killing unbelievers and tying multiple women to poles at the Mosul Dam to be raped. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to use to promote your values unless you're a psychopath. What the fuck.
It seems odd to structure a project around freedom of speech, control of your own information, and dilution of central authority, and then act disappointed when it actually gets used for those purposes.
If a group that posts videos of journalist executions can use it without getting shut down, it is certainly usable for any other group that may be unpopular with their local majority: Tibetan nationalists, Falun Gong, breastfeeding moms, cop watchers, Iranian women's rights groups, Ukranian rebels, homosexuals, German Nazis, Quebec secessionists, eco-terrorists, unschoolers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, red-state liberals, blue-state conservatives, and people who text while driving.
To get the good, you have to take the bad with it. The same Bitcoin that can buy a pizza can also buy a murder. The same typewriter can write both a beautiful poem or an extortion note. A hammer can build a house or crack a skull. A fire can chase away the cold and the dark, or it can burn your home to ash.
The early adopters are going to be the most blatantly offensive, and the most suspiciously paranoid, and the most idealist. The mainstream people already have their mainstream network, and won't see any reason to switch until they find themselves penalized in some way for being different from the owners of the system.
This is good. If someone as nasty as a journalist beheader can't get silenced, I know with reasonable certainty that if I go to Diaspora, there's likely nothing I would ever do myself that would result in me being erased from the network. And I can share information with just my friends, rather than my friends plus all paying Facebook customers.
And in addition to all that, how can you expect to get more jaw-jaw and less war-war if you slap a gag on the other guy every time you see his lips move?
There is a difference between a forum for the free exchange of ideas, and a decentralized system that can be used to plan and share murders/(horrible other things). It is totally legal (in the usa) for you to get together with your friends and talk about whatever you want, but it is not legal for you to get together and plan an overthrow of the government, or a murder. It's not good that a dangerous group has a new tool.
Isn't that kind of what it was created for? They had to know from the start that not all the people and groups who used it would have noble intentions.
In this case, I think it has more to do with the spreading a message that has recruitment as one of its aims. In the US, the freedom of speech doesn't apply if you are, for example, spreading a message that says, "You all need to kill [ethnic group]."
I don't like what these guys are posting about but should we really abandon freedom of speech over it? Wouldn't that be an example of the terrorists winning?
The problem is that not all countries consider this free speech. If you're hosting a Diaspora pod in the UK, then having this material on your system is considered terrorism.
I don't think "free speech" means what you think it means. Your freedom to speech, does not give me the obligation to publish your speech on my website.
In this case the Diaspora team is using their free speech to suggest that various pod administrators choose not to publish some particularly nasty speech.
A stranger here, i stumbled on this thread as i've been mulling over Diaspora's reaction to ISIS's sudden and dreadful arrival. It's heartening to read these threads and consider your reasoned and civilized exchanges.
My own perspective is largely reflected in the early post of logfromblammo, which puts me in the extremist free (i.e., decentralized/uncensorable) speech camp, i guess. logfromblammo's observation that early adopters rarely come from (anywhere near) the mainstream seems an especially salient aspect of the good-with-the-bad argument in this case.
The only thing i'd add, as an old school free speecher, is that the traditional anti-censorship answer to bad speech is more good speech. ...still thinking about how that model plays out on a distributed social network (social networking being an activity i personally mostly avoid).
Anyway...GRATITUDE for the cogent, respectful conversation i've had the pleasure of eavesdropping on.
What about this: the Diaspora team does not betray their principles for encouraging pod admins to block IS content, mainly because they do not make up their minds and say 'Oh shit, maybe this decentralized thing was not that good an idea'. What they're saying is that they do not approve of what IS do and say, and think that you shouldn't neither.
As it was said before, saying that certain assholes should shut up does not equal betraying the principle of freedom of speech. Now, that is philosophical subtleties aside. Of course this invokes hard questions, like, who gets to decide which assholes should shut up. But let's not split hairs -- IS case is not a borderline case. That is, if we all agree that what they do is universally harmful.
If someone doesn't then I think there's not much to discuss.
Scientists have ethics committees, but what do we turn to in these situations? Undoubtedly, many of us would argue that free speech is one of the best things that has come out of the internet, and open source and decentralised software is often created for this very reason. On the other hand, it gives extremists a platform for communication. It's a fine balancing act and I'm not sure there is enough debate around these sorts of issues.
If they set up their own pod then they can spread whatever propaganda they want. Earlier in the year IS made the foolish mistake of setting up on a Red Matrix server administered by someone who opposed them, and they promptly got kicked off.
I've been thinking about this type of problem for a while now. One possible solution would be a requirement for the content to pay for its 'right to be visible' or 'right of existence'. Rates for right of existence could vary based on network sentiment/karma regarding the content. Karma could be earned by users providing storage or purchased in bulk for a fee.
There was strange premonition of this in the 1990s Left Behind scifi series. This was at the dawn of the web. In those stories the true-believer Xtianss are guerillas battling the forces of the anti-Christ whom control all government utilities like the web. Yet the guerillas use the web for their planning. I always wondered why the anti-christ couldnt stop the web.
[+] [-] pera|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] srslack|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kordless|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dewey|11 years ago|reply
I know they could just setup their own Pod but these values are what makes them any different from the likes of Twitter and I would've expected them to stand by them a bit more.
[0] https://diasporafoundation.org/
[+] [-] bellerocky|11 years ago|reply
Yeah that's probably because the ISIS is known for suicide bombings, cutting off heads, video taping it so that the families and friends of the victim can see how gruesome their loved one died, killing unbelievers and tying multiple women to poles at the Mosul Dam to be raped. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to use to promote your values unless you're a psychopath. What the fuck.
[+] [-] sp332|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] higherpurpose|11 years ago|reply
I for one would like Twister to take off as alternative to Twitter:
http://twister.net.co/
EDIT: It also seems to be compatible with Tor now:
http://twister.net.co/?p=366
[+] [-] logfromblammo|11 years ago|reply
If a group that posts videos of journalist executions can use it without getting shut down, it is certainly usable for any other group that may be unpopular with their local majority: Tibetan nationalists, Falun Gong, breastfeeding moms, cop watchers, Iranian women's rights groups, Ukranian rebels, homosexuals, German Nazis, Quebec secessionists, eco-terrorists, unschoolers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, red-state liberals, blue-state conservatives, and people who text while driving.
To get the good, you have to take the bad with it. The same Bitcoin that can buy a pizza can also buy a murder. The same typewriter can write both a beautiful poem or an extortion note. A hammer can build a house or crack a skull. A fire can chase away the cold and the dark, or it can burn your home to ash.
The early adopters are going to be the most blatantly offensive, and the most suspiciously paranoid, and the most idealist. The mainstream people already have their mainstream network, and won't see any reason to switch until they find themselves penalized in some way for being different from the owners of the system.
This is good. If someone as nasty as a journalist beheader can't get silenced, I know with reasonable certainty that if I go to Diaspora, there's likely nothing I would ever do myself that would result in me being erased from the network. And I can share information with just my friends, rather than my friends plus all paying Facebook customers.
And in addition to all that, how can you expect to get more jaw-jaw and less war-war if you slap a gag on the other guy every time you see his lips move?
[+] [-] ibebrett|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
They have good uses but I can think of plenty of bad uses and I suspect that the bad uses will outnumber the good uses at any moment in time.
[+] [-] logfromblammo|11 years ago|reply
How many pedo-pervs would you allow to trade images such that one political dissident may speak without fear of persecution?
[+] [-] goatforce5|11 years ago|reply
"diaspora* is completely Free Software. This means there are no limits on how it can be used."
Sounds like the IS people are using it as intended.
(Life will get complicated for any pod admins in western countries though.)
[+] [-] yarrel|11 years ago|reply
Xerox cannot stop IS using photocopiers.
Sanford cannot stop IS using pencils.
BBC cannot stop IS listening to World Service.
etc.
[+] [-] samirmenon|11 years ago|reply
"admitted"? What's with the tone of this article? What crime are they "admitting" to?
In my experience, BBC should be better than this.
[+] [-] Scorpion|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlievens|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangero|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nilicule|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanflyon|11 years ago|reply
In this case the Diaspora team is using their free speech to suggest that various pod administrators choose not to publish some particularly nasty speech.
[+] [-] anelizat|11 years ago|reply
My own perspective is largely reflected in the early post of logfromblammo, which puts me in the extremist free (i.e., decentralized/uncensorable) speech camp, i guess. logfromblammo's observation that early adopters rarely come from (anywhere near) the mainstream seems an especially salient aspect of the good-with-the-bad argument in this case.
The only thing i'd add, as an old school free speecher, is that the traditional anti-censorship answer to bad speech is more good speech. ...still thinking about how that model plays out on a distributed social network (social networking being an activity i personally mostly avoid).
Anyway...GRATITUDE for the cogent, respectful conversation i've had the pleasure of eavesdropping on.
[+] [-] dlkdg|11 years ago|reply
As it was said before, saying that certain assholes should shut up does not equal betraying the principle of freedom of speech. Now, that is philosophical subtleties aside. Of course this invokes hard questions, like, who gets to decide which assholes should shut up. But let's not split hairs -- IS case is not a borderline case. That is, if we all agree that what they do is universally harmful.
If someone doesn't then I think there's not much to discuss.
[+] [-] tedunangst|11 years ago|reply
That would have been a great quote to have on the crowdfunding page.
[+] [-] sp332|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexchamberlain|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motters|11 years ago|reply
https://libertypod.org/posts/7a778c00f3a201319eb700163efe12c...
[+] [-] kordless|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter303|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k__|11 years ago|reply
Sounds like a quality criteria to me.
[+] [-] thisjepisje|11 years ago|reply