creatorbytes

I think the next stage is decentralized social media. Something like nostr (1) where there’s no centralized entity determining the algorithm to boost. It’s up to the individual to follow users.

Perhaps the next challenge would be human verification, even with this protocol we’d need something to index public people by to handle discovery.

Even before LLM’s became as mainstream as they are, most social media platforms were riddled with spam: affiliate marketing, drop shipping crap, and people who are running some sort of con.

1 - https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr already has 8k stars on github

This sounds like a microservice vs monolith statement in disguise.

Respectfully I disagree, maybe with more context I’d be on a similar boat.

The communication overhead is a real challenge to be reckoned with. I don’t think the mere fact something has 10 functions in one service makes it better or worse than breaking those out into their own services (not even getting into at what level do you break them down? Since most all code is a composition of functions)

Personally I go monolith first, then if and only if there’s a function of the monolith that needs to scale separately from the rest of its parts, then I’ll consider making it its own service (and this has to be a pretty large extreme to take on this burden)

Too many times I’ve been burnt by attempts at micro services, which seem to stagnate faster than monoliths at some companies. I also think there’s a higher degree of documentation each new service made, vs keeping it an endpoint in a monolith. But I digress

What Russia is doing is horrible. War crimes and all. However I wouldn’t go so far as call them nazis, think it dampens that metaphor when it’s over used.

Russia feels NATO expansion is too close to their doorstep, he warned many times and this is the outcome.

Obviously not condoning it, and it’s many millions of lives displaced and tens of thousands lost. Generations will be effected.

Russia using the excuse of nazis in Ukraine, and the need to free the Ukrainian people is a tall tail. Though there is a small amount of truth, of actual nazis existing in some of the armed forces of Ukraine [0]. But by no means justifies what’s been done.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-probl...

This is partly confirmation bias. Millions of officers, we’re gonna have bad ones. Obviously we need to improve, but to think that officers who have at least some amount of vetting are going to do worse than a security force is utter denial of the human condition.

Look at South Africa, they have security forces. Or look at India, they too have a police force. But in South Africa, their security force is only available for the wealthy, while in India, they’re actually corrupt police are paid off daily. You don’t want to leave your house without cash to bribe a cop. And if you don’t, you get beat.

I’d rather be in the US with their policing than have a citizens army of security, or almost any police force.

That’s quite the straw man. We should separate an issue of moderation and actual motives of the platform itself.

Did the platform have algorithms to make pro-capital storming posts ascend higher than other equally engaged posts?

Did the owner/company make a call to violence?

Did their platform spike in popularity in such a short time frame, they were unable to moderate to the same degree as other platforms? (Even Google struggles with YT moderation, though I understand the volume of content is widely different)

It’s obvious there exist political ties to this. Sure, have Parler respond to a congressional hearing just as other tech companies have had to do. But removing them from all these services overnight, albeit technically legal (so far), reeks of anti trust.

No matter political affiliation, the antitrust precedent set, if unpunished, will pave the way for greater censorship.

This seems like a similar level to price fixing - multiple companies, competing even, coordinating to cancel competition.

This is a new issue we have in the digital age. It should be handled in the Supreme Court.

But that puts the burden on who defines hate. Similar to the issue with banning “hate speech”. Where’s the line?

We know the extremes, but the extremes aren’t the problem.

“Basketball is stupid” - hate speech targeting a minority demographic, thereby racist.

I wish the above was hyperbole, but there’s a non-zero group size of people in nearby college communities that would agree.

An underlying issue is the formation of the digital world - what once was a town square is now a (ex.) Facebook page, or network of Twitter followers.

The mechanism of communication exchange have changed so rapidly, that compelling companies to abide by free speech is a tough legislative decision. Yes, they’re corporations and can decide who to have and who not.

But an emergent phenomenon are people using these services as their lens to the world. This was obvious in the last election, red or blue, it was obvious whose side big tech was on. They were not unbiased, as I think they should be.

I’d say just as AOC wanted to get a list created of trump political supporters/affiliates (not general public, but a stepping stone away) and essentially cancel them, the same rhetoric is used to ban forms of speech. “It’s for the better”.

Another reason for controlled speech is a patronizing one, that “you’re head/emotions can’t handle X form of speech”.

Let people decide what they want to see. If I want a censored Twitter, or Wild West Twitter, let me choose. Though I understand the impracticality of forcing this on a corporation.

The only thing banned should be what is illegal. Let legislatures and judges determine it.

I'm going for less the egregiously banned crowd, more of the soft-banned crowd. So creators who are de ranked, shadow banned, or what not, but aren't removed completely from the platform. That isn't to say all content not on the platforms are too egregious for the market creatorbytes is going for, but there are cases where after abuse of YT's copyright strike system, the creators are off the platform for no fault of their own. Rather the abuse was from competing creators. Yet they're too small to make a fuss, and largely go unheard.

Typically I've seen this with conservative views. Though I understand I'll inherently be attracting more extreme ones as well.

Again I'd try not to foster discussion on the platform, but aggregate links to other platforms for their discussions to take place, hopefully removing the liability, at least partially.

Those are good points, some solutions that I've seen sites like BitChute use, or one that Twitter is contemplating, could be a combination of the following:

* Any illegal content would be removed

* Content that is more fringe, can be required to have a flag, where users must opt-in to see such content (bitchute's strategy)

* Non-logged in users by default don't see specific content. But this is made clear to the user, and content creator. Users logged in can elect what level of fringe they would like to see, or not see (sort of like twitter's banned words list concept)

The site would essentially aggregate links, and statistics of the platforms onto one page. So unlike 8chan, users aren't actually posting content, and I'm not hosting the creator's content. Maybe a MOTD from the creator, but I think that's manageable

I would like to hear what you think. It is a hard line to draw, my thinking is the site would be a sort of meta-site, aggregating the hosting platforms to one place, thereby removing the burden from creatorbytes. Domains will go through a manual process as to not be malicious/illegal, and once approved, are whitelisted.

Edit: All users will be able to see all creator pages, but previews for their content feed, or links with titles that are too fringe, etc, would have some sort of filter, and require log in.