
Diaspora social network cannot stop IS posts - codeoclock
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28882042
======
pera
This is like saying "E-Mail cannot stop X mails" or "XMPP cannot stop X
chats", which is pretty obvious. The whole point of a decentralized service
like Diaspora is that it can't be completely censored. Internet providers
could partially block the access to pods that don't censor this kind of
content, but then they could setup their own Diaspora pod in a Tor hidden
services...

~~~
kordless
Doesn't it operate as a social network, where some content is available
publicly? That would make it a bit different than email...

~~~
juliangoldsmith
As I understand it, it's a network of federated servers. The Diaspora team
doesn't control the servers, so there's nothing they can do.

------
dewey
I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values
(Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0])
they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.

I know they could just setup their own Pod but these values are what makes
them any different from the likes of Twitter and I would've expected them to
stand by them a bit more.

[0] [https://diasporafoundation.org/](https://diasporafoundation.org/)

~~~
bellerocky
> I think it's a bit weird that instead of using this to promote their values
> (Decentralization, Freedom, Privacy as mentioned on their landing page [0])
> they are essentially pressuring pod admins to take down the content.

Yeah that's probably because the ISIS is known for suicide bombings, cutting
off heads, video taping it so that the families and friends of the victim can
see how gruesome their loved one died, killing unbelievers and tying multiple
women to poles at the Mosul Dam to be raped. Not exactly the kind of thing you
want to use to promote your values unless you're a psychopath. What the fuck.

~~~
dewey
So it's "Freedom of Speech" (but only if we like it)?

~~~
bellerocky
Seems like you're confused here. Freedom of speech is about citizens and their
government, not citizens and private entities. Having said that, freedom of
speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, and the courts have
supported this. Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians
on Twitter. So yes, freedom of speech is a limited right. It's not a right to
encourage people to rape, murder and pillage, is that really so shocking to
you?

~~~
tinco
Free speech is about humans expressing their thoughts, whether they be love or
hate. That in many countries free speech is limited to prevent propaganda for
'dangerous' causes like rape, pillaging and terrorism is an evil deemed
necessary by most.

So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we
have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free
speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications (
by hosting pods).

Note that I myself support the restrictions on free speech as they are
although I am keenly aware of the danger and evil of it.

~~~
bellerocky
> So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we
> have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free
> speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications (
> by hosting pods).

The video being "suppressed" is of the gruesome, intimidating murder of James
Foley, a journalist who risked his life for a profession dedicated to 1st
amendment principles. Being intolerant of intolerance is perfectly ok for me.
Maybe not you, because you're kind of extreme and not really thinking through
things in my opinion, but ok whatever floats your boat.

~~~
judk
So perhaps it's best to, at his death, not destroy the principles he lived
for.

~~~
bellerocky
I don't think his principles were to terrify people and intimidate journalists
from reporting the news. If people like him weren't risking his life there all
you'd have would be official government propaganda.

------
higherpurpose
Maybe Diaspora will finally take off now that the other social networks will
begin to get heavily censored.

I for one would like Twister to take off as alternative to Twitter:

[http://twister.net.co/](http://twister.net.co/)

EDIT: It also seems to be compatible with Tor now:

[http://twister.net.co/?p=366](http://twister.net.co/?p=366)

------
logfromblammo
It seems odd to structure a project around freedom of speech, control of your
own information, and dilution of central authority, and then act disappointed
when it actually gets used for those purposes.

If a group that posts videos of journalist executions can use it without
getting shut down, it is certainly usable for any other group that may be
unpopular with their local majority: Tibetan nationalists, Falun Gong,
breastfeeding moms, cop watchers, Iranian women's rights groups, Ukranian
rebels, homosexuals, German Nazis, Quebec secessionists, eco-terrorists,
unschoolers, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, red-state liberals, blue-state
conservatives, and people who text while driving.

To get the good, you have to take the bad with it. The same Bitcoin that can
buy a pizza can also buy a murder. The same typewriter can write both a
beautiful poem or an extortion note. A hammer can build a house or crack a
skull. A fire can chase away the cold and the dark, or it can burn your home
to ash.

The early adopters are going to be the most blatantly offensive, and the most
suspiciously paranoid, and the most idealist. The mainstream people already
have their mainstream network, and won't see any reason to switch until they
find themselves penalized in some way for being different from the owners of
the system.

This is _good_. If someone as nasty as a journalist beheader can't get
silenced, I know with reasonable certainty that if I go to Diaspora, there's
likely nothing I would ever do myself that would result in me being erased
from the network. And I can share information with just my friends, rather
than my friends plus all paying Facebook customers.

And in addition to all that, how can you expect to get more jaw-jaw and less
war-war if you slap a gag on the other guy every time you see his lips move?

~~~
ibebrett
There is a difference between a forum for the free exchange of ideas, and a
decentralized system that can be used to plan and share murders/(horrible
other things). It is totally legal (in the usa) for you to get together with
your friends and talk about whatever you want, but it is not legal for you to
get together and plan an overthrow of the government, or a murder. It's not
good that a dangerous group has a new tool.

~~~
logfromblammo
You actually can get together with your friends and plan an overthrow of the
government. That's exactly what the Free State Project is. It just so happens
that their plot does not include violence or other criminal behaviors.

And you can plan a murder. The conversation itself is not a crime. But it is
very damning evidence if the prospective victim that was discussed actually
turns up dead, showing that the crime was, in fact, premeditated murder and
not a less severely punished type of homicide, and that accomplices were
involved. The speech is not the crime. It is evidence of malicious intent if a
crime subsequently occurs. It may also be useful intelligence that could allow
someone to interfere with a crime in progress.

If you overhear the murder conversation, you might be able to prevent a
murder. But those guys could have been talking about their clan strategy for a
MMORPG raid, and you simply misunderstood the intent. You don't know for
certain until someone _acts_.

Censorship cannot stop crimes. It can only conceal evidence.

~~~
ibebrett
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)#United_St...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_\(criminal\)#United_States)

~~~
logfromblammo
It seems the drug war subverts sensible legal principle again. I find the
reasoning behind US v. Shabani to be completely abhorrent. And as a 9-0
decision, it's absolutely shameful. You can't reasonably prove that a
conspiracy to commit a crime existed if the criminal act never actually
happened. You would think that at least _one_ justice would have thought that
through a bit more, and dissented.

------
jacquesm
This is one of the reasons I never felt that I could run a TOR or freenet node
in good conscience.

They have good uses but I can think of plenty of bad uses and I suspect that
the bad uses will outnumber the good uses at any moment in time.

~~~
logfromblammo
By Blackstone math, it is better than ten guilty men go free than one innocent
be punished.

How many pedo-pervs would you allow to trade images such that one political
dissident may speak without fear of persecution?

~~~
jacquesm
Absolutely, but that does not mean that I'm going to have to enable 10 guilty
men to perpetrate their crimes.

If a political dissident would approach me I'd more than happily attempt to
smuggle his words out of whatever dictatorship he or she is currently living
in, that would be my call to make. But whoever gets unfettered access to my
network interfaces is going to have to be known to me in person.

~~~
logfromblammo
If the dissident could approach you to ask for your help, he wouldn't need to.
You have to gamble on opening up that channel for anyone to use.

You have to pick your Blackstone Number. If the actual ratio of criminal to
innocent exceeds it, you should not participate in Tor. Otherwise, you should.

As for myself, I don't think I'd go as high as 10, but I might be willing to
enable as many as 3 people to anonymously commit the worst information-based
crime I can conceive without my knowledge to enable one person to achieve the
greatest assistance possible from safe and unfettered access to information.

Unfortunately, if I run a Tor exit node, I am likely to experience government
persecution as the identifiable scapegoat for all that criminal activity that
I was willing to tolerate for the sake of helping one person in need. By
prosecuting exit node operators for traffic passing through, government policy
effectively sets the Blackstone Number for everyone to zero, and damns the
innocent.

~~~
jacquesm
(1) I don't _have_ to anything

(2) if someone is a dissident I'm willing to take significant risk on their
behalf, but only after I've verified for myself that they are what they say
they are.

I'm not entirely green in this respect, I've run a number of services that
were borderline legal and have had numerous run-ins with the law because of
this. I've decided for myself that the amount of abuse does not make it worth
my while on the off chance that one day a dissident _might_ make use of the
service. Feel free to adjust your strategy according to what you believe is
the right ratio, I've done this for myself already after building up a fair
amount of experience with services that lent themselves a lot less to abuse
than tor.

------
goatforce5
[https://diasporafoundation.org/about#features](https://diasporafoundation.org/about#features)

"diaspora* is completely Free Software. This means there are no limits on how
it can be used."

Sounds like the IS people are using it as intended.

(Life will get complicated for any pod admins in western countries though.)

------
yarrel
Microsoft and Dell cannot stop IS using computers.

Xerox cannot stop IS using photocopiers.

Sanford cannot stop IS using pencils.

BBC cannot stop IS listening to World Service.

etc.

------
samirmenon
"The team behind a social network being used by Islamic State (IS) militants
has _admitted_ it cannot prevent the spread of extremist material."

"admitted"? What's with the tone of this article? What crime are they
"admitting" to?

In my experience, BBC should be better than this.

------
Scorpion
Isn't that kind of what it was created for? They had to know from the start
that not all the people and groups who used it would have noble intentions.

------
mikeash
Sometimes it seems like people are more upset about the words of killers than
the fact that they go around killing people.

~~~
pyre
In this case, I think it has more to do with the spreading a message that has
recruitment as one of its aims. In the US, the freedom of speech doesn't apply
if you are, for example, spreading a message that says, "You all need to kill
[ethnic group]."

------
dangero
I don't like what these guys are posting about but should we really abandon
freedom of speech over it? Wouldn't that be an example of the terrorists
winning?

~~~
nilicule
The problem is that not all countries consider this free speech. If you're
hosting a Diaspora pod in the UK, then having this material on your system is
considered terrorism.

~~~
Alupis
In the UK -- simply linking-to, reporting, or even _viewing_ of this material
is considered illegal under anti-terrorism laws... (I can understand if it's
distasteful, or socially frowned upon... but illegal to view a video? come-
on...)

------
anelizat
A stranger here, i stumbled on this thread as i've been mulling over
Diaspora's reaction to ISIS's sudden and dreadful arrival. It's heartening to
read these threads and consider your reasoned and civilized exchanges.

My own perspective is largely reflected in the early post of logfromblammo,
which puts me in the extremist free (i.e., decentralized/uncensorable) speech
camp, i guess. logfromblammo's observation that early adopters rarely come
from (anywhere near) the mainstream seems an especially salient aspect of the
good-with-the-bad argument in this case.

The only thing i'd add, as an old school free speecher, is that the
traditional anti-censorship answer to bad speech is more good speech. ...still
thinking about how that model plays out on a distributed social network
(social networking being an activity i personally mostly avoid).

Anyway...GRATITUDE for the cogent, respectful conversation i've had the
pleasure of eavesdropping on.

------
dlkdg
What about this: the Diaspora team does not betray their principles for
encouraging pod admins to block IS content, mainly because they do not make up
their minds and say 'Oh shit, maybe this decentralized thing was not that good
an idea'. What they're saying is that they do not approve of what IS do and
say, and think that you shouldn't neither.

As it was said before, saying that certain assholes should shut up does not
equal betraying the principle of freedom of speech. Now, that is philosophical
subtleties aside. _Of course_ this invokes hard questions, like, who gets to
decide which assholes should shut up. But let's not split hairs -- IS case is
not a borderline case. That is, if we all agree that what they do is
universally harmful.

If someone doesn't then I think there's not much to discuss.

------
tedunangst
_" It's absolutely inevitable that organisations like IS are going to be among
the early adopters of this sort of innovation."_

That would have been a great quote to have on the crowdfunding page.

~~~
sp332
The more trouble they have taking down IS content, the safer I know my pod is.

------
alexchamberlain
Scientists have ethics committees, but what do we turn to in these situations?
Undoubtedly, many of us would argue that free speech is one of the best things
that has come out of the internet, and open source and decentralised software
is often created for this very reason. On the other hand, it gives extremists
a platform for communication. It's a fine balancing act and I'm not sure there
is enough debate around these sorts of issues.

------
motters
If they set up their own pod then they can spread whatever propaganda they
want. Earlier in the year IS made the foolish mistake of setting up on a Red
Matrix server administered by someone who opposed them, and they promptly got
kicked off.

[https://libertypod.org/posts/7a778c00f3a201319eb700163efe12c...](https://libertypod.org/posts/7a778c00f3a201319eb700163efe12c9)

------
kordless
I've been thinking about this type of problem for a while now. One possible
solution would be a requirement for the content to pay for its 'right to be
visible' or 'right of existence'. Rates for right of existence could vary
based on network sentiment/karma regarding the content. Karma could be earned
by users providing storage or purchased in bulk for a fee.

------
peter303
There was strange premonition of this in the 1990s Left Behind scifi series.
This was at the dawn of the web. In those stories the true-believer Xtianss
are guerillas battling the forces of the anti-Christ whom control all
government utilities like the web. Yet the guerillas use the web for their
planning. I always wondered why the anti-christ couldnt stop the web.

------
k__
Hey, there are people who use it to do more offensive stuff than I ever would
and they can't censor them.

Sounds like a quality criteria to me.

------
thisjepisje
Never heard of Diaspora, but based on this article I think it sounds good.

------
unclesaamm
Groups conducting subversive activities all moving to one service..? This
sounds like DARPA's lucky day.

------
lazylizard
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it?

------
Alupis
"IS", aka Islamic State, does not necessarily mean "Extremist"

(and for the record, "IS" is not a synonym for "ISIS")

~~~
kordless
> In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority
> over all Muslims across the world and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-
> inhabited regions of the world under its direct political control, beginning
> with territory in the Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel,
> Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and an area in southern Turkey that includes
> Hatay.

Sounds pretty extreme to me.

~~~
Alupis
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state)

Not so much. You are using the definition from an article geared towards
ousting extremists -- and therefore their definition is "extreme". An IS can
very much-so be a legitimate non-extreme government. (albeit, different from
what most of us would prefer as a government)

------
u124556
So it works.

