[rglullis]

What website should we block if we want to avoid another Boston Marathon bombing or men running trucks over people in Christmas markets like in Berlin?

(I just realized that both happened mere blocks of my residence at the time. Maybe if I become homeless we will be able to prevent these horrific events)

[pmachinery]

> I just realized that both happened mere blocks of my residence at the time.

So you didn't notice they happened blocks away from you when they happened?

[rglullis]

I mean I realized that both examples that came to my mind were the ones that I had physical proximity.

[pmachinery]

Yeah, sorry, it's a fair enough way of phrasing it, I just thought the implication of it was funny.

[notreallytrue]

Let's start with Facebook and Twitter that are cancerous and see what happens...

> men running trucks over people in Christmas markets like in Berlin?

This is one of those events that we can consider extremely rare.

Nobody can prevent the actions of some lone wolf

[rglullis]

So rare that a very similar one happened in the French Riviera just some months after?

Anyway, the point is that we can not solve social issues with technological solutions. You are just acting on the symptoms but still never going to get a cure. Block a "cancerous" open site, and crazy sick people are just continue to do what they do in a darker corner of the net.

[notreallytrue]

Yes, rare.

Like a few times in a century, not hundreds times in a year, every year, sir.

Closing social networks is not a technological solution, it's political.

Public speech must not be controlled by private entities

Unless you are the US and don't understand it.

Crazy people with their forums for crazy people have no ability to target hundreds of millions of people through paid ads

Please, try to understand it, because it's really not that hard

There's a reason why every developed country in the World strictly controls firearms but not knifes

There's a reason why the only "developed" country where mass shootings happen all the time is the only developed country that refuses to strictly control firearms

It's the most evident proof of Einstein law of insanity

[rglullis]

> Public speech must not be controlled by private entities

This is part where we disagree. Not that I am defending that private entities should "control" public speech, but rather that this control is circunstancial. Remove Facebook and Twitter (and every big media conglomerate as well, FOX, CNN, NBC) all you want, people will still look for groups that share their views and messages that confirm their biases.

This is not just a guess. I am seeing this first-hand with the people looking into leaving Twitter and joining Mastodon. Go to /r/mastodon and you will see me arguing with every one that comes with the idea that different instances mean different "communities" and "interests".

Also, consider the alternative. The article is saying that we shouldn't want a decentralized web. Who would you propose to "control" public speech? If not private companies and if not smaller groups, the only alternatives left is, guess what, Big State and tyrants

[notreallytrue]

They always looked for places where to share their opinions with other people

Those places didn't weaponize their feelings and weaknesses against them to sell them ads

Want to make a global social network?

The State should be able to control them (every single state they operate in) and their decisions should be held accountable in court

The SN banned you?

They should have human support to solve the issues and a judge could overrule the decision, while now they are black holes

I trust the State, more than Facebook, if someone doesn't they shouldn't impose their decisions on other groups, including other countries

It's weird to read that people living in countries where the police can arrest you for not stepping out of the car or saying to a police officer to f*ck off defend the right to wear swastikas or private companies keeping public speech hostage in the name of freedom

Decentralised web can exists only among many small actors, when there are a few behemoth that control everything, of course segregation is gonna be the most obvious response: Russian internet, Chinese internet and let's hope European internet soon.

[rglullis]

> Those places didn't weaponize their feelings and weaknesses against them to sell them ads.

This can be said of every media company. Every newspaper, magazine (low-brow or high brow), radio, TV station, cable TV company.

Every. Single. One.

> I trust the State, more than Facebook.

It doesn't matter who you trust more. It matters who you are able to disengage from. We as individuals and as groups can choose to keep Facebook of our lives. Can the Chinese say the same from the CCP?

> segregation is gonna be the most obvious response (...) let's hope European Internet

So, you are so afraid of Facebook's "control" of the internet that you would actively advocate to put in the hands of tyrants and kleptocrats?

Either you don't understand the concept of "decentralized web" or you are just fucking with me.

[implements]

> There's a reason why every developed country in the World strictly controls firearms but not knifes.

As a slight tangent, Britain actually does strictly control knives - a short folding non-locking penknife is the only knife that can be carried in public without good reason, and “self defence” is considered never a good reason, and the penknife can still get you arrested if you happen to have it on you in an inappropriate place (bar, nightclub, sports event, etc).

[notreallytrue]

Italy too

But that's about carrying them, not owning them

The point is that you can buy a butcher knife or a chopper from IKEA but not a rifle gun

For obvious reasons