https://odysee.com/@FUTO:e/casey-muratori-(-mollyrocket-)-digital:b
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 0
Just making sure the rules are clear and there's due process isn't enough. Not everyone can agree on what the rules *should be*. And democracy isn't a solution either. It's too collectivistic.
If a site, say, bans anything that contradicts the scientific consensus (even if they are very clear about what that means and follow all these due process rules), there should be an outlet for people who want to be able to do that, and that can only be solved (AFAICS) by competition of rulesets and enforcers. This is the case even if a majority of people voted for that rule.
So, according to Casey, we shouldn't build parallel systems as this is useful with human resources, and instead build a parallel system filled with very inefficient, limited and expensive human resources (lawyers) that doesn't scale??
His analogy with the city water system doesn't hold water (pun intended). Parley's ban is like the water treatment plant kicking off the city, because a restaurant has a sign in its window.
IMHO, a statist's grasp after "please be more fair".
@Hyolobrika @gabriel So for example, if I'm providing a service for free, and you are using this service, and if I will ban you for whatever reason, you're going to sue me? Sounds like a stupidest idea ever.
@silverpill@mitra.social
I am concerned the big picture plan (haven't seen he futo talk yet) is to basically try to regulate away small players entirely.
Adding liability is a way to do it, but it sounds nice when people think of stopping big tech from censoring them, which is a fool's errand.
I'm assuming @Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net was thinking more in terms of large services that most people are expected to be able to interact with one way or another (like github or Wikipedia).
@gabriel @Hyolobrika In the talk they mention Mastodon servers too. But even if it only applies to large services... People should stop trying to "fix" them, this is not going to work. Eventually these services will be made obsolete by competitors who use better technology. We're working on it.
Can the legal system improve the technological landscape?
@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net @silverpill@mitra.social
Finally watched the talk.
In terms of publicly traded/regulated institutions this talk does have some legs. It seems the goal is to somehow standardize "trust and safety" and make it transparent. For many large publicly-traded corporate services, I think this could be an upgrade.
This gets much harder when the site is free and/or a community effort. Should wikipedia be forced to bring in external reviewers? Maybe a different wiki could out-compete them with it, but that's a different story. An uncharitable example would involve companies suing the former maintainer of xz for giving up control of the project.
One of the things being discussed by people all over the spectrum here in Canadian politics in light of our online harms bill is that the legal system itself has it's own challenges. Would argue that trying to leverage the legal system to solve your domains problems is something that would be ...unwelcome by the legal community.
What should the legal system put it's effort into? A case regarding a violent act, or one about somebody's AI wife/husband being changed?
I'll say it's an interesting idea, but definitely hard to reasonably make a reality. Part of me wonders if FUTO is asking the wrong questions. This seems like a great way to fix "too big to fail" tech, but not much of a way to empower individuals to actually take control of their tech. Hopefully they keep building interesting tools.
@Hyolobrika
> If a site, say, bans anything that contradicts the scientific consensus (even if they are very clear about what that means and follow all these due process rules), there should be an outlet for people who want to be able to do that, and that can only be solved (AFAICS) by competition of rulesets and enforcers.
Just so I can understand your position, are you saying something about the digital space makes it fundamentally different from the courts? Or is this an AnCap argument...