
Ask HN: Do we need to redesign the internet? - lbj
The last wave of bans across multiple platforms have got me thinking that we&#x27;re on a bad version of the Internet.<p>In general, I dont like shutting up the opposition and with traffic consolidated so heavily on a few platforms&#x2F;companies, bans effectively shut people up.<p>On the other hand, I cant deny that even the most outrageous claims find willing ears on the internet. Diseases that were all but exterminated are now flourishing in Europe thanks to anti-vax propaganda.<p>Is there a middle-ground here, where people can speak their minds, engage with others - likeminded or not - without the damaging effects? Or are we destined to end in some form of dictatorship where 10 people determine who says what?<p>And what happens when we no longer agree with these 10 people? Can we even get to that point if the entire narrative is so heavily controlled?
======
axegon_
I've had similar thoughts over the years and while there is a lot that's wrong
with the internet, issues like banning, propaganda and so on, are neither
symptoms nor a consequence of it. It has nothing to do with the internet and
everything to do with plain and simple stupidity which has been spreading for
as long as the world has existed and much faster than covid-19.

The only difference between now and say 20 years ago, is that 20 years ago the
internet wasn't a part of Average Joe's life and back then it wasn't fueled by
his personal content. The TV-commercial spam has penetrated into people's
social life via social media. And refusing to acknowledge this fact, people
left their front doors wide open for spam, propaganda in exchange for
like/upvote-based "currency". Which many are willing to exploit naturally,
while others look the other way in order to take a piece of the pie. There
have been some efforts to slow that process down but the means are evolving.
The current frontier of spam and propaganda, as I see it, are Q&A types of
communities which makes spam and propaganda cheaper and more accessible than
ever.

What I'm trying to say is that what you are describing is a symptom of an
sickness in people, and not in the technology: Most people are refusing to
change or even reconsider their views when facts are presented to them.

~~~
uniqueid
I've also been thinking about this lately ( eg:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23595921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23595921)
), and there's no longer much doubt in my mind that we need something
different than what the net and web currently are.

My current favorite idea is that we create different protocols that coexist
with what we use already. The internet, as it exists today, would live on as a
"wild west" likely used primarily by young adults and a few weirdos. Most
people, either out of maturity, or because they are younger children whose
parents force them, would instead use the new "Safe Web." They would opt to so
because the new web would be an order of magnitude safer, more accountable,
and more legible. The "Safe Web" would also offer some control (not that much
is possible) over reach of content.

The "old internet" would actually play a vital role, though, because CSS and
Javascript, which the new web wouldn't support, allow for innovations. So, in
effect, the "old web" becomes a sandbox from which the "new web" can steal
features.

The internet, as it is today, offers unfettered free speech without
accountability and without verifiability. The resultant dumpster fire can live
on, but it doesn't work for rational adults (makes them angry or
dis/misinforms them), and isn't appropriate for children and younger teens
(since they're gullible).

If we ever have a new internet, that's where I'd spend 99% of my time. The
subjects that internet free speech activists fight for today just don't
interest me. I'd rather read up on Math or History, than watch videos of
people falling into a rock crusher, or debate which "races" are inferior to
others, or listen to paranoid theories about how Jews invented cancer, etc.

------
mulmen
In a word: "no."

In some more words:

I don't see the problem. Reddit is a private organization, they decided some
other people are not welcome there, that is their prerogative. Hateful racists
can go start their own forum, which they did. They are free to welcome other
viewpoints or not.

In specific words:

> The last wave of bans across multiple platforms have got me thinking that
> we're on a bad version of the Internet.

We aren't, people are free to conduct their own business as they see fit. It's
still the Internet.

> In general, I dont like shutting up the opposition and with traffic
> consolidated so heavily on a few platforms/companies, bans effectively shut
> people up.

Great, you can run your own forum and amplify the voice of whoever you want.
Other people are free to moderate their platforms as they please.

> On the other hand, I cant deny that even the most outrageous claims find
> willing ears on the internet. Diseases that were all but exterminated are
> now flourishing in Europe thanks to anti-vax propaganda.

Right.

> Is there a middle-ground here, where people can speak their minds, engage
> with others - likeminded or not - without the damaging effects? Or are we
> destined to end in some form of dictatorship where 10 people determine who
> says what?

The internet _is_ the middle ground. I see no reason we are destined to end in
some form of "dictatorship", unless we maintain this insistence that all
platforms have to allow all speech.

> And what happens when we no longer agree with these 10 people? Can we even
> get to that point if the entire narrative is so heavily controlled?

You can just... use the Internet. Register your own domain, pay for your own
hosting, or buy some servers, take out come ads. It's the Internet, you can
still do anything.

Sure, if you host a bunch of white nationalist toxic garbage your registrar
may revoke your domains. Your hosting provider may pull the plug on your
servers, etc. That's exactly how it should and does work.

~~~
bitwize
> You can just... use the Internet. Register your own domain, pay for your own
> hosting, or buy some servers, take out come ads. It's the Internet, you can
> still do anything.

Until CloudFlare -- or MasterCard -- bans you because they don't like what you
say.

No matter -- just start your own upstream services provider or credit card
processing company.

~~~
eaandkw
Can't wait to go down this road.

Hey you don't like it. Just become a doctor and fix yourself. Healthcare isn't
a right.

Hey you don't like it. Just get you own water, filter it, and clean it. Clean
water isn't a right.

Is this really the answer?

------
Jtsummers
The Internet is fine. It's the Web that has become problematic. Choose open
protocols to build your communication systems on (email, usenet, others), then
let people establish their own servers and set up peering. Users can elect to
use one or multiple servers and any client that can understand the protocol.

------
ezekg
We need more decentralization, moving the Web outside of big corps that censor
"wrong think." We need more critical free thinkers. We need to be more vocal.
We need more conversation and willingness for understanding differing view
points. I almost feel like, at least for a ‘main’ social network/chat and
political conversations, we need something like the Nets from Enders Game,
tying online accounts to real persons, possibly reducing potential for
misinformation, propaganda, and opposition-silencing spread by bots and non-
persons. All I know is that FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. are "hive minds" and it
is incredibly disheartening when you are one those who "wrong think." And it
doesn't seem organic.

~~~
lazyjones
> We need more decentralization, moving the Web outside of big corps that
> censor "wrong think."

We used to have Usenet, which was fairly decentralized in the sense that each
server/provider could decide to ban some groups and admins and moderated
groups could ban users.

It didn't work so well, the same problems as today existed 25 years ago
because similarly-inclined people banned opposing views or legal, but
questionable content.

Perhaps we just need smaller online communities? Not because there would be a
different composition of views, but the lynch mobs and drama that affect every
single user would be smaller and more manageable.

> FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. are "hive minds"

They're just in the wrong hands, the power to censor and deplatform people is
in the hand of too few individuals and organizations, some openly radical
left.

~~~
zzo38computer
> We used to have Usenet, which was fairly decentralized in the sense that
> each server/provider could decide to ban some groups and admins and
> moderated groups could ban users.

We still have Usenet. I still find it work better than many of the newer
alternatives, although I have only started using Usenet in 2019.

------
gitgud
> _" And what happens when we no longer agree with these 10 people? Can we
> even get to that point if the entire narrative is so heavily controlled?"_

What people seem to forget is that popular internet platforms are always
controlled. When you join a site like; Reddit, HN etc.. you agree to play by
_their_ rules. The rules are not always fair but that's because it's _their_
platform, _not_ yours.

The reality is, you can say anything you want on your own platform, but you do
not have that right on someone-else's platform... nor should you

Basically, the internet is open and free, but platforms are walled and
guarded... and that's fine

------
j3th9n
I think Elon Musk's Starlink is a very promising example of keeping the
internet open for everybody. Governments will have a hard time shutting down
the internet when there are satellites providing unlimited access.

------
duxup
What about the internet ... implies there should be no bans or ... how would
you do that?

I'm not sure you can manipulate human behavior to be what you want with a
technology akin to "the internet".

Think of Bitcoin, there's some interesting issues that Satoshi Nakamoto talks
about. Has it done any of that? I'd say not much, and rather than solve very
many internet commerce issues ... it's spawned a whole world of scams and
other undesirable effects.

------
buboard
bans are good - it means de-consolidation. Wait until something interesting
happens in gab.ai and you 'll see hordes of left-leaning people flock to it,
because people _love_ to argue on the internet, and safe bubbles dont have a
lot of arguing.

The internet was designed to be robust afaik, we dont need a new design but
rather let it work as it was intented

------
rafiki6
You need to be more specific about what you mean by the internet. The
"internet" is just a protocol and a bunch of cables connecting a bunch of
servers together (obvious over simplification to illustrate a point). If you
mean specific sites that dominate usage of internet then that's a different
story. If you mean control of the network, that's not really a design problem.
The internet was ultimately a communications network invented by the
government. Governments have and always will try to moderate communication
networks.

------
Aqueous
the problem with the internet isn’t the internet, it’s humans

