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.
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
There's an in-between point that I think is more common than good microservices, that I think you're describing, that I've seen called a "distributed monolith". Basically what happens when the microservices are too intertwined to be independently replaceable as GP suggests.
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.
Oh, I see, the ones you call actual nazis, that would be the far-right hooligans with some tattoos or whatever that every single country in the world has? And the ones you wouldn't go as far as calling them nazis, that would be the completely innocent and harmless Russian dudes, invariably sent into Ukraine unawares, thinking it was just some military drills, or liberating people from evil banderites, or both at the same times apparently, the same completely harmless Russian dudes whose only teeny tiny little fault is that they for some reason can't help but commit genocide and other war crimes on a scale unseen in almost 80 years? Did I get that right?
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.
Yes, we're gonna have bad officers. What happens next? Are they shunned? Forced out of the profession?
This isn't some abstract hypothetical. We have generations of police who "washed out" of training because they weren't bad enough. It's important to have an accurate diagnosis when proposing a course of treatment.
It is.. But at the same time, its a completely decentralized system and there are MANY that do a very good job at washing out the bad ones. There are plenty that deserve criticism, and even federal investigation/intervention. But by and large the system works.
There are millions of police, and hundreds of millions of encounters daily across a huge range of investigations and issues. boiling it down to twitter levels of context is bad and applying such broad strokes is also equally bad. Its certainly not going to encourage good ones to sign up.
I know with the way this type of stuff is being portrayed, its a no win for most police, they could quadruple the salaries overnight and some would still balk, because no matter what it a loss.
Shunning is crap. Instead of resorting to such dark-age extralegal tactics, how about we get some prosecutors who do their damn jobs and prosecute criminal police? Unfortunately prosecutors are generally elected and many people don't want to admit the root of the problem is with the electorate who choose to elect and re-elect prosecutors who don't want to do their jobs.
Depends on the severity of the act. Shunning is excellent punishment for low-level misbehavior. If you allow misbehavior to accrue and expand, eventually you'll get to a case where you need a prosecutor.
That prosecutor's job would be easier if the criminal officer's colleagues would testify against them, which goes back (again) to social mores.
Prosecutors rely on cops to get their prosecutions, and if the prosecutor is the only one who faces repercussions for charging a cop, then obviously they're going to be loathe to charge any cops.
Honestly, though, the system isn't recoverable in most regions. American police, the ideological successors to slave catchers, suffer a rot that is too deep. Many are literally white supremacist gangs. It isn't a system that can be reformed.
Just a few bad apples? The fact that they feel comfortable doing stuff like the head kicking shows there is a organisational cultural issue in the police. If the citizens didn’t film it they’d be on their merry way and not a word would be said.
Inndian here, just like someone was saying upthread, there are millions of police offices in India. Lets not get carried away and say all are corrupt annd people are not getting beat left and right as you seem to inisinuate.
There are around 700,000 police officers in the US. If one of them is caught doing something bad every day, that's 0.00014%.
US police in general have a lot of issues and need to improve dramatically, but the stories about cases of bad behavior are not representative samples, even if you factor in the amount of bad behavior that goes undiscovered.
But every one of those officers doing something bad every day has an entire department and union behind them that are very aware that that officer is bad. What do they do? They protect him. Every time. They are just as culpable. This is why the saying a few bad apples spoils the bunch exists.
On-duty cops shoot a thousand people a year. In the last several decades, three have been convicted of murder. How can we trust the system that produced such ridiculous numbers?
> There are around 700,000 police officers in the US. If one of them is caught doing something bad every day, that's 0.00014%.
I take your point, but not exactly. First, an officer that's planting evidence or attacking unarmed handcuffed civilians has been known to be a bad officer by say the other 50 officers in their department. Second, they're not caught on their first day. Third, the high profile ones are high profile because they're left on the force and continue being bad even after being caught.
So the 0.00014% of people being caught every day is _additive_ over time, this isn't a random sampling. It doesn't mean that 0.00014% of officers are bad, it means that we increase the pool of bad officers by that much every day.
The number was just intended to indicate what a small fraction any individual instance is. Even being additive, and even with undiscovered bad cases, these cases are still not representative samples of US police in general. In other words, as an earlier commenter said, this is partly confirmation bias.
That's not to say these incidents aren't indicative of systemic problems, but that's not the same as saying saying all or most police are like this. What "confirmation bias" means here is that people are looking at the exceptional cases to confirm their opinion of police as a whole, which is objectively a mistake.
That's sort of a biased source you link. It lists deaths, but often times these deaths come as a result of someone threatening a cop with a deadly weapon. There's been like two dozen shootings from the LAPD so far this year, and most were due to someone charging an armed cop with a knife or a similar suicidal incident. I think just looking at use of force without context will give you a pretty biased view. Certainly it's been overused, but a lot of times, especially with the mental health crisis going on where people who are insane and a danger to others are allowed to refuse treatment, it is justified when another life is at stake.
> It lists deaths, but often times these deaths come as a result of someone threatening a cop with a deadly weapon.
Other countries also have people who threaten cops with deadly weapons, and their numbers are far far lower. Hell, suicide-by-cop is a very real and common thing here in the USA.
Once again, you mention nothing about the rate or all the latent variables at play here. For example, other first world countries generally have stronger social safety nets, which means mentally ill people and aged out foster youth in those places are less likely to end up on the street in the first place compared to the U.S. We also have an issue at least in CA where jails are at capacity, and people are being turned out when they would have been held for bail, and often go on to commit more crimes while waiting to be charged for the first one.
> someone charging an armed cop with a knife or a similar suicidal incident
It's weird reading that when I was a kid I was constantly told cops are heroes because they put their lives on the line where most wouldn't or couldn't. Like I'm an untrained bumpkin, unfortunately if someone had a knife and I had a gun, I can't really think of much more than shooting them.
But somewhere along the line the standard for police dropped down to the standard for me? The untrained bumpkin?
Since pretty much every time I hear cop by suicide it's apparent, and people still say "well what would *you* do" like that's the smoking gun...
-
It even extends to more casual cases, the other day there was a video of a lady mooning an officer. The thing is the lady was clearly let go before that fairly stupid act, and last I checked mooning someone doesn't imply you've suddenly become a lethal threat.. but the cop was just so out of shape that shortly after realizing they couldn't keep up with this not very fast person they ended up tasering this person on asphalt.
A fully grown adult out cold at running pace straight into asphalt because a cop is so out of shape they can't chase a person who mooned them
That's not the picture I grew up with...
-
I honestly don't have a problem with that though! I don't think we have to force people to gamble their lives for others. There's a certain sense of, "if I can't do it, I can't make someone else do it".
But if that's the case then we need to drop a lot of the pretence to traditional policing cops have right now.
Like the pay and pensions are all based around the hazard, but it's safer than being a cab driver. Maybe because now fearing for your life is an out to kill people reaching for wallets.
And a lot of interactions they have with people, like speed enforcement should probably be dropped, if we're just admitting lethal force has moved up a few notches.
And maybe they need to have attachments with them for certain calls. If someone is showing signs of mental instability, someone experienced with dealing with that vs applying lethal force should be directly involved.
The fact that cops are trained is precisely why they shoot people who try and charge them or others with knives. The correct first-line strategy for dealing with a knife attack is not allowing the attacker to close enough distance with you to use the knife, because once they do, regardless of how well trained you are how untrained they are there's still a high chance you'll end up seriously injured or dead. It's that imminent danger that justifies the use of deadly force. As I understand it, every self defence course worth its salt teaches this - even the ones focused on bare-handed fighting. Any tactics for dealing with attackers who do close that gap are just a high-risk last resort for situations where that fails.
Humans are entitled to use deadly force in response to credible threats to life. Someone waving a knife around, or even running while waving a knife around, is not that. The fact that knives exist is the reason that police carry billy clubs. A normal who citizen shot and killed someone of his own race because they were waving around a knife, would be charged with murder. Police officers should be better trained and better able to deal with knives than the average person. Those few departments who have mandated effective training have seen significant results from that training. [0] Well-trained ninjas with swords are actually quite rare in the modern policing environment.
This is missing the forest for the trees so badly it hurts.
Why do you think I said I'd be forced to shoot? Because even without training common sense tells you "not allowing the attacker to close enough distance with you to use the knife" is a pretty good course of action
By your logic the moment a person calls 911, the people who are supposed to help, the person has been sentenced to death. Think about that for a second.
1. The cops will arrive
2. "avoid knife getting close to me"
3. Less than lethal is not reliable, hell even lethal force isn't instant, I feared for my life, they're shot very dead.
-
It's not an easy problem, but how is that ok? There's not many ways to fix it other than trying something other than lethal force.
Like the stuff in those videos is not easy, I'm not trying to pretend I could do it, or most people could. It requires cops being able to put the most efficient response for self-preservation behind trying to save someone, which again, I'm not saying we require of anyone...
But let's call a spade a spade at that point. That's not the concept of policing I see paraded. That's not the "thin blue line", it sounds more like a cell of civilians that are deployed to bad situations where they then "apply self-defense"...
Thanks for making my point that the standard for officers is now people who are too scared to put the public before themselves... which is pretty much all of us. The opposite of a thin blue line.
> Like the stuff in those videos is not easy, I'm not trying to pretend I could do it, or most people could.
I'm not a police officer because I'm not brave enough. I'd fear for my life, and I shoot. So instead of putting myself in a profession that should ideally require more of me, I don't.
If everyone felt that way, and did it your way, the only ones left would betge criminally insane/psychopathic unfazed by the utilization of violence. Without those who are willing to counter that wanton tendency to violence with a principled, controlled application of protocol driven escalation of force, civilization devolves even further into barbarism and might makes right than the arguable state in which it is already in.
If the people who were police were better able to keep cool instead of jumping to shoot people in the face in fear... all that would be left would be the criminally insane?
And somehow we'd have less controlled application of protocol?
There really would be a line that separates them from the "rest of us", and anti-police sentiment would be a hell of a lot weaker. I mean, how often do we have national anti-firefighter sentiment? Maybe when police use them to mow down humans?
-
If being a police officer is just about carrying a gun and looking out for number one, all we're looking for is people who don't hesitate to pull a trigger.
Just realize, lowering the bar to "willing to shoot to protect self the moment anything threatens me" is a hell of a lot lower than "willing to put other's lives at similar value to mine, even if it risks my own".
Ironically the lower bar sounds like how attract to the "criminally insane/psychopathic unfazed by the utilization of violence"... to become police.
Considering some states have already removed this immunity and others are considering it, I don't think it is required. That is to say that the state can and does bring charges for violations done while performing work for the state.
> it was decided they’re necessary to keep the state from being stuck
It wasn't necessarily decided by elected representatives, most of these protections have be put in place by courts and are based purely on legal precedent rather than legislation.
> It’s legal to sue government agents as private citizens for violation of rights.
It is legal to sue anyone for anything. The standards of proof required to win such a lawsuit make it generally ineffective at rectifing most cases where rights are violated.
The people who pay got vigilante private security don't do it to avoid police planting evidence in them.
They do it to have someome to attack the others, someone under their control. They have zero incentive to prevent private security from planting evidence on others.
Gangs in fact did not ended up to be fair non corrupt equivalent of police either.
I'm much less concerned with them planting evidence on me than I am with them shooting a friend or family member who is experiencing a mental health crisis.
That is the same category. People who will call private security in your friend or family don't mind violence that much.
And in case you are the one calling, you don't need private security as much as private mental health professional. Because that knowledge and exlerience of mental health crisis comes with being mental health professional - not with security.
> People who will call private security in your friend or family don't mind violence that much.
If private security shoots someone having a mental health crisis, they have far fewer legal protections to help them avoid consequences. This is precisely the point I have been making.
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.
If clients or customers bring bad publicity to a company they can refuse them service. They can in fact refuse service for any reason that isn't discriminatory in many jurisdictions.
Censorship has nothing to do with this. Any person can host a website from home, pay for a dedicated line, build their own datacenter, find a colo, host on a decentralised network, etc.
Amazon is under no obligation to provide service to Parler. They are not censored by Amazon refusing them as customers.
It's also not relevant to antitrust, literally at all.
A far more dangerous precedent would be compelling companies to provide service to hate groups and terrorists.
Parler wasn’t deleted because of public pressure alone. It was deleted because of AWS customers that threatened to leave. Last thing large enterprise customers want is to be caught up in is a controversy. Amazon made a business decision. No tech executive wants to explain to their CEO that they got boycotted due to a tech vendor choice. If AWs didn’t kick off Parler, the boycott of AWS based customers was coming.
> We should separate an issue of moderation and actual motives of the platform itself
Why though? On some level in seems impossible to make a distinction "from the outside," and I'm not sure it should matter that a decision was made by a person (probably following an Excel spreadsheet) or software.
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.
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.
I certainly appreciate your principled stance against censorship.
I do have to wonder who this site is for. Who's viewpoint is censored on major platforms, but is also not "malicious/illegal?" What can a content creator host on "creatorbytes" that would otherwise be censored by major platforms?
It seems like a lot of platforms have tried to capitalize on providing a space for users banned from major platforms (Voat, 4chan, 8chan, etc.) and they all seem to face similar issues, and don't seem to foster any meaningful discussion that couldn't otherwise exist elsewhere.
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.
>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.
I'll admit this is an area that I don't know much about. Are there any creators you'd currently recommend who have been soft-banned from larger platforms?
And while I can certainly agree that YT's copyright system needs fixing, that seems like an issue that can't be fixed here, other than linking to another site who will have a different mechanism to prevent copyright infringement.
Is this meant to be like a curated list of content that one might not have seen otherwise?
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