6 ms·

Like the Romans ignored the early steam engines? Have you seen the social network behind the css gear submission [1]? >nobody has gotten it quite right yet >

Like the Romans ignored the early steam engines? Have you seen the social network behind the css gear submission [1]? >nobody has gotten it quite right yet >we think existing platforms have some good ideas, but no one’s managed to create one without profound flaws. we’re borrowing liberally from other sites, but we want to build cohost into something that works well and serves its users rather than just another clone. There is a huge probability that we haven't figured it out yet. Instead of quitting, we should double down and try new things. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32123804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32123804

amelius 4y ago
> Instead of quitting, we should double down and try new things. If you can find a way to effectively fight fake news, then there is something to be said for it. Otherwise, sorry, but we've seen enough already.
- mawise 4y ago
  I hadn't heard of cohost, but there's something to be said about curation--which seems to be their proposed approach to discovery. This is a big part of the service newspapers and libraries (used to?) provide. There's an argument to be made that curation equates to censorship, but I think it's wrong. Anyone can write anything on the internet, but that doesn't come with the right to have your message amplified just because it pisses off a lot of people.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  It may be naive but I think all you need are accounts linked to human identities and a central repository of facts and sources. When something is reported, OP can check his facts and alter his content or insist on his view. The reporter then can double down and a moderator looks at it. Request a down payment for both content and reports, and moderation pays for itself when the losing party has to pay the process. Don't allow people to post new content as long as a report is open. The expensive part is the repository of facts. That has to be maintained with membership fees of the social network.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Who decides what are "facts"? During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media companies censored many posts as "misinformation" which later turned out to be accurate (or at least not provably false).
    - closedloop129 4y ago
      There are various options. Since facts should rely on proofs, it should be straight forward to establish the baseline. For the grey area, I would allow people to choose their fact provider. The providers have to document the reasoning for their 'facts'. Since time establishes which 'facts' are facts, you can determine which providers are sincere and ask users to choose among them.
      - nradov 4y ago
        It's not straightforward at all. You're being dangerously naive. The fact checkers inevitably pick and choose "facts" to support their preferred narrative.
        closedloop129 4y ago
        That's an investment in disinformation that has to be made. As you write: >During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media companies censored many posts as "misinformation" which later turned out to be accurate The fact checkers who pick wrong facts stand out and can be excluded. But it takes some time. However, that only affects people who don't care about their information sources. With a central repository, everybody could check the foundation of "facts" that are used for censorship and switch their fact checker if necessary.
        nradov 4y ago
        And who pays for the central repository? Who decides which entities are allowed to be official "fact checkers"? Why should any of that be used for censorship, and who should enforce it? You clearly haven't thought this through.

amelius 4y ago

> Instead of quitting, we should double down and try new things. If you can find a way to effectively fight fake news, then there is something to be said for it. Otherwise, sorry, but we've seen enough already.

mawise 4y ago
I hadn't heard of cohost, but there's something to be said about curation--which seems to be their proposed approach to discovery. This is a big part of the service newspapers and libraries (used to?) provide. There's an argument to be made that curation equates to censorship, but I think it's wrong. Anyone can write anything on the internet, but that doesn't come with the right to have your message amplified just because it pisses off a lot of people.
closedloop129 4y ago
It may be naive but I think all you need are accounts linked to human identities and a central repository of facts and sources. When something is reported, OP can check his facts and alter his content or insist on his view. The reporter then can double down and a moderator looks at it. Request a down payment for both content and reports, and moderation pays for itself when the losing party has to pay the process. Don't allow people to post new content as long as a report is open. The expensive part is the repository of facts. That has to be maintained with membership fees of the social network.
- nradov 4y ago
  Who decides what are "facts"? During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media companies censored many posts as "misinformation" which later turned out to be accurate (or at least not provably false).
  - closedloop129 4y ago
    There are various options. Since facts should rely on proofs, it should be straight forward to establish the baseline. For the grey area, I would allow people to choose their fact provider. The providers have to document the reasoning for their 'facts'. Since time establishes which 'facts' are facts, you can determine which providers are sincere and ask users to choose among them.
    - nradov 4y ago
      It's not straightforward at all. You're being dangerously naive. The fact checkers inevitably pick and choose "facts" to support their preferred narrative.
      - closedloop129 4y ago
        That's an investment in disinformation that has to be made. As you write: >During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media companies censored many posts as "misinformation" which later turned out to be accurate The fact checkers who pick wrong facts stand out and can be excluded. But it takes some time. However, that only affects people who don't care about their information sources. With a central repository, everybody could check the foundation of "facts" that are used for censorship and switch their fact checker if necessary.
        nradov 4y ago
        And who pays for the central repository? Who decides which entities are allowed to be official "fact checkers"? Why should any of that be used for censorship, and who should enforce it? You clearly haven't thought this through.