Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by vfclists 2727 days ago
You used a headline grabbing/clickbait title such as Diaspora Foundation: A Child Porn Sharing Neywork, in order to draw attention to a lack of a federated moderation system in the Diaspora network system.

In my view this alone would be a good reason for you to be banned and cast out from those groups. FWIW I am not involved in those groups and I don't even know what happens in them, but the fact that you used such a title to draw attention to your cause shows that you have a cause which is not compatible with their ethos and other such decentralized systems.

Decentralized networks have arisen in response to centralized and privately controlled services like Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Paypal and Patreon which use they term hate speech, neo-nazi, populist as excuses to ban those whose political and social views they disagree with, and you seriously expect them to adopt some sort of centralized control system. Good luck to you.

The same can be said of the TOR network, which seems to have become a system abused by all kinds of shady operators, with child pornography networks, bitcoin extortionists, Islamist propaganda networks among those operating behind the anonymity it offers.. Are there any calls for some kind OPTIONAL federated moderation systems for the TOR network?

How about Cloudflare, which has also come under criticism for protecting shady actors?

As for the child porn issue, the Internet itself can be seen as a child porn network irrespective of what tools or services are used to access it, and the same can be said about its so called relationship with hate speech. As Jordan Peterson asks, who defines what hate speech is?

As for the OPTIONAL part, things which are optional eventually morph into mandatory systems, with the possibility of operators who don't subscribe to such services being blocked simply for not using it..

Take a look at an organization such as Spamhaus, a supposedly optional but privately owned and controlled service, all the criticism and complaints of their abuse and misuse of a power over the years, and ask yourself why an organization committed to decentralized communication woud want such as system at the core of the services it provides.

I say this again, good luck to you!!

1 comments

Hey buddy, I'm seeing a ton of CP on the D* network. Maybe that's cool with you, but to me, it means that the D* network is a place for disseminating CP and potentially a place where child sex trafficking is occuring. Thats not sensationalism. If you think people should be banned for comments about moderation, I would suggest you don't understand the difference between fair moderation and censorship. Or maybe you just think CP is cool huh? Are you one of the D* core devs, is that why you are defending this network where child sex abuse pictures are being posted every day?

IMHO people who scream CENSORSHIP when you start talking about removing CP and going after child predators, are usually child predators.

This is precisely the attitude which would probably get you banned, and I would ban you for such an attitude. You titled your post with CP and switched to neo-nazis who kept moving around when they were banned or blocked, the switched back to CP on the networks.

You didn't write about CP posters that you blocked or banned only for them switch to other pods. Any reason for that omission? You see, insinuations can work both ways.

The truth is you want moderation for other things besides CP, and you are using CP to draw attention to your cause.

You are already making insinuations like:

> "Or maybe you just think CP is cool huh? Are you one of the D* core devs, is that why you are defending this network where child sex abuse pictures are being posted every day?"

> "IMHO people who scream CENSORSHIP when you start talking about removing CP and going after child predators, are usually child predators."

Your behaviour is like some militant activists and SJWs who vilify and impugn people innocent people for no other reason that they don't share their views or subscribe to their causes. You might as well say that people who support and defend the 2nd amendment right to bear arms support mass murderers who go on killing sprees line Sandy Hook etc, and enjoy seeing the aftermath of such events on television. Do you characterize all defenders of the second amendment in that manner?

The whole point of decentralization is to avoid the very kind of controls you seek to have implemented. In any case the proper thing to do is for end users to have the kind of software that screens out users they don't like. If end users want to share their lists that is fine, centralizing the process without total transparency and accountability defeats the very idea of decentralized networks. There is no such thing has having your cake and eating it.

stevenicr has already made some comments along such lines, but without a transparent process which allows users final control on what they see or cannot receive you are bound to wind up in the Spamhaus situation. The end user must have the final say.

Since it is also a software issue, have you considered forking the software and implementing the changes you want, and letting pod administrators choose which software they prefer? That is a saner approach than casting innuendo about the software developers.

If you think people should be banned from discussions because of their "attitudes" regarding moderation, you don't understand the difference between moderation and censorship, and you are advocating censorship.

> I would ban you for such an attitude.

Well, then you are a would-be censor, and it's a good thing you can't ban everyone everywhere, or else the whole world would fall silent and the only sound would be of your waxing nonsense. All those "spammers" with their "spam" complaints about CP, amirite?

If you think people should be banned from discussions because they won't stop complaining about all the CP on the network and how they can't legally run a pod anymore, well that's the attitude I'd expect from a CP network admin.

Dude I think I have offered the proper solution to your problem.

You have made your suggestions, they have been ignored and you have been banned from the relevant discussion groups.

It is quite obvious that the solution is a software issue, that what you want is a change to the software.

Then what you have to do is to seek out some like-minded pod administrators, have some discussions with them, gather whatever necessary resources required to fork the software and get going.

The software is open source, isn't it?

That is a whole lot better than accusing some software developers of aiding and abetting the distribution of CP, which can be said of the whole of the Internet itself.

I'm accusing them of aiding and abetting the distribution of CP because that's EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING, that's why they have a network with tons of CP on it RIGHT NOW.

> hey you know what you should do with this CP platform? FORK IT!!!

LOL, no. I have no interest in working on the D* project, ever again, my focus has now turned towards working with law enforcement to hold them accountable for aiding and abetting distribution of CP.

If the Diaspora Foundation wants to insult and ban podmins who complain about CP, then it's only logical that the response of those podmins should be to start criminal CP complaints against them.