Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #8711

Re: Proposal For A Distributed Open Source Free Speech Social Media Platform (DOSFSSMP!)

Show all headers | View raw

W dniu piątek, 27 kwietnia 2018 01:27:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał:
> Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube are coming under fire for 
> shadow-banning, demonetising, suspending, or outright blocking people 
> with whose political views they do not agree.
> 
> Usenet never had that problem.
> 
> But Usenet is dying, because it's /so/ last millennium. Not shiny 
> enough. No videos, no memes, all that.
> 
> Usenet does, however, have one massive advantage. It is *distributed* - 
> that is, no one person or company or government owns it.
> 
> We can't fix Usenet, alas. The mechanisms for doing so have rusted shut, 
> and nobody has an oil-can.
> 
> But we could create a new platform that uses its advantages and deals 
> with its disadvantages.
> 
> What follows is an idea of what such a platform might taste like.
> 
> ========================
> 
> What is the new platform to be called?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> "Distributed Open Source Free Speech Social Media Platform" !
> 
> DOSFSSMP for short. Yes, it's a crap name. Some people are geniuseses at 
> names, but I'm not. So think of it as a place-holder name that will be 
> replaced by something sensible.
> 
> Who should own DOSFSSMP?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Nobody and everybody. Certainly not a company or a government. Anyone 
> must be allowed to install a DOSFSSMP server if they wish, at no charge 
> (just like Apache), and all the DOSFSSMP servers should be able to talk 
> to each other (sort of like Apache!). Anyone should be allowed to write 
> a DOSFSSMP client if they wish, too.
> 
> 
> Who should control DOSFSSMP?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Everybody and nobody. Anyone can say anything (subject to applicable 
> laws in some suitably free-speech-friendly country), and anybody can 
> killfile anyone they don't want to read - just like Usenet.
> 
> The protocol would be in the hands of a steering group (simply because 
> these things don't happen by magic, and the protocol has to be 
> relatively stable), but there must be a mechanism in place for 
> replenishing that group when people decide to spend more time with their 
> family!
> 
> Server operators would not be under any obligation to maintain a 
> complete feed (for example, they could reject explicit content or spam 
> or whatever they want to reject), but users would be free to switch 
> servers (or connect to multiple servers) if they felt that the service 
> was not meeting their needs. It would perhaps be reasonable to build in 
> a requirement for a prudish server to do something like this:
> 
> * Server A: calling all servers, calling all servers, I do not wish to 
> carry message ID XYZ from user ABC because <reason>; will anyone take it?
> * Server B: I don't mind taking a look.
> * Server A: hello, client ABC. I'm not going to accept your message, but 
> B might take it. Please try there.
> 
> 
> 
> What should DOSFSSMP offer?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> * Easy authentication - no mobile phone requirement! I'm thinking 
> something like PKC. (If you have the private key, it must be you, right?)
> * Threaded discussion (like Usenet and Twitter)
> * Approval/Disapproval (like "like", like, and "dislike", like)
> * A heads-up when something interesting happens (a la "notifications")
> * Sources (like Twitter's "followers", but that's a horrible word)
> * Rudimentary formatting (bold, italic, underline)
> * Those ridiculous little pictures like emoticons on acid
> * An editing window of perhaps 30 seconds during which nobody can reply 
> to an article, to give the author time to correct a boneheaded typo or two
> * The ability to delete one's own article (in which case it is replaced 
> by a pro forma "this article was deleted" message)
> * Images (at least JPEG, PNG, GIF inc animation, and BMP)
> * Videos
> * Audio
> * MIDI?
> * Direct Messaging (via some kind of request/accept protocol)
> * Groups (for any legal purpose desired, names on a 
> first-come-first-served basis, and with some kind of passable-onnable 
> moderation powers)
> * Killfiling (or, more generally, the ability for a client program to 
> protect its user from unwanted material - spam, explicit, extremist, etc)
> * FLEXIBILITY - it should be possible to add new features to the 
> protocol without breaking anything
> 
> 
> What would be required?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> * A protocol that ALLOWS but does not REQUIRE a Web interface (because 
> there are so many people for whom the Web /is/ the Internet)
> * A steering group for the DOSFSSMP protocol, whose members are not only 
> competent but also committed to free speech for *everyone*, not just 
> their political bedfellows
> * A well-known port (there are plenty at the top end that nobody really 
> uses for anything much)
> * Server software
> * Client software
> 
> 
> What happens now?
> +++++++++++++++++
> 
> Discussion, I hope! And, if there is any interest, we can maybe start 
> thinking about the protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> So - any comments?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard Heathfield
> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

if such new usenet would have all that videos and publicity it would generate serious abuses imo.. youtube is okay just their policy is tio aggresive (probably mostly by bad algorithm work) they should
probably block less often or maybe this blocking should be more "soft" (overall not much interesting topic to me)

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Proposal For A Distributed Open Source Free Speech Social Media Platform (DOSFSSMP!) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-04-27 00:27 +0100
  Re: Proposal For A Distributed Open Source Free Speech Social Media Platform (DOSFSSMP!) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 06:49 -0700

csiph-web