SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Packt reports that Gab's Dissenter browser extension was removed from Mozilla's Firefox add-ons on April 10th (people already using it can continue to do so), and was booted from Google's Chrome browser the next day. Gab pitches itself as an anti-censorship social media platform that only prohibits speech that is illegal. Their Dissenter browser extension and associated website allow people to share comments about any webpage, giving users the ability to share comments on articles, videos, etc., regardless of whether or not the website hosting the content has a comments section. Mozilla's rationale for the ban was that Dissenter was being used to promote violence, hate speech, and discrimination, but they failed to show any examples to bolster that claim. Gab plans to develop their own browser in response.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:32AM
You have the right idea, but I think the answer is with *decentralization* rather than some new, centralized platform.
I've been (as I'm sure you're aware) beating on the lack of competition and choice of ISPs, along with the abusive ToS (specifically server port blocking) of those ISPs for quite some time.
That, along with a lack of *symmetric* consumer broadband connections, creates an environment that doesn't allow for small groups to connect to other small groups (e.g., Diaspora [diasporafoundation.org] pods) to build large, federated social networks by connecting with each other.
The solution isn't as simple as something like Gab, as if it's centralized, it can be blocked or made harder to access. What's more, using something like Diaspora (not shilling for them, they just have a reasonably mature product that provides just this sort of functionality. There are others) is impossible to block, as it's not centralized and all content is owned by those hosting and posting. There are no ads, there are no corporations tracking every website access, mouse movement or keystroke to profit from profiling your behavior.
There are a whole raft of things that need to happen in order to make stuff like this feasible. Greater (or at least some) ISP competition, Municipal broadband, strong net neutrality regulation (no blocking, no throttling, no port blocking), symmetric broadband connections, as well as software (which Diaspora does *not* currently do well) that's easy to install/configure.
What's more, the centralized companies (and the every growing list of other companies in a wide variety of industries) profiting from "surveillance capitalism" [wikipedia.org] (
Video here [c-span.org]) will fight tooth and nail to keep the profits rolling in.
I was first introduced to the Internet in the 1980s, before all the commercialization and it fascinated me. I started reading RFCs and learning the protocols of the TCP/IP suite, used tools like KA9Q [wikipedia.org].
What was so amazing to me was that there weren't any gatekeepers, there wasn't anyone telling you what you could or couldn't do (except sabotage and stunts like the Morris Worm [wikipedia.org] and the like).
There were no servers, per se and no clients. Just peers. Sometimes they were servers and sometimes they were clients.
Once commercialization came onto the scene, that all started to change. Back then there were technical reasons why we saw asymmetric download/upload speeds, but those issues have been long solved -- yet we still see asymmetric links. Why? Because the big ISPs are content providers and they want to keep the broadcast to consumer model alive.
In the middle of all this, people wanted to communicate, share and interact with each other online. Since decentralized hosting was impractical due to the severe asymmetry in download/upload bandwidth, centralized sites sprang up (The Free-net [tedium.co] is a good, early example. Note that I do *not* mean The Freenet Project [freenetproject.org], although that's a good idea too!).
As more ad-supported centralized platforms emerged, it set the stage for the dominance of Google and the eventual rise of Facebook and Twitter.
Search engines are necessary (anyone want to go back to Archie/Veronica and anonymous FTP lists?), but they don't need to be data sucking monsters like Google.
We don't need stuff like Twitter and Facebook. With current technology, decentralized social media platforms are absolutely feasible and vastly superior to the centralized garbage we have today.
Given the resistance by powerful organizations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and pretty much every large ISP, getting where we need to be won't be easy.
Pester your elected officials. Not so much your Federal representatives (although they should get attention too), but state and local elected officials that grant ISP monopolies, decide whether or not municipal broadband is to be built, and all manner of other *local* issues that keep us from getting the symmetric bandwidth and non-abusive ToS we need.
Freedom isn't free, nor is it safe. And if we want freedom of expression that can't be controlled or dictated by large corporations or the government, we need to fight for it. Not with guns, but with organization, communication and strong pressure on those we put into office (most importantly state and local folks) to ensure that we can realize the promise that open protocols and widespread access to the Internet can provide.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr