
Ceasefire – Where cooler heads prevail. App launched today - SuchAPerfectDay
https://ceasefire.net/
======
i_cannot_hack
Something minor that I noticed: You have a 5000x3000px 12mb image squeezed
into a 600x400px frame on the landing page. Consider resizing this image to
something more reasonable, since you're not using the full resolution anyway.
It's very wasteful and led to a bad experience for me due to it taking several
seconds to load.

~~~
RobLach
I just had a 56k flashback.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
56 kbps? Luxury!

------
kerkeslager
I'm not giving you my email address, so you lost a lot of points from me right
away.

I signed up with a fake email, and it appears this is a forum, with the goal
of having polite discussions about controversial topics. I think this is a
worthy goal, perhaps one of the most important goals one could possibly have
right now, but there are two unanswered and very important questions:

1\. What do you consider "polite"?

2\. How does that translate into action, i.e. what are you doing differently
from other social media?

At its core, this problem is tied to financing: conversation on existing
social media is broken because they make money off ads. To serve ads
successfully, you need to get engagement (which is best done by creating
outrage) and you need to personalize (which is best done by violating privacy,
and as a side effect, creates echo chambers). Since social media doesn't want
to kill their ad profits, they're investing in censorship instead of
addressing the core issue. Admittedly, the core issue is a very hard problem,
but it won't be solved by ending free speech--that just creates a second wave
of problems. Now the bigots that caused the outrage feel persecuted, so they
run off and radicalize in their own echo chambers, and the rest of us are left
with an echo chamber where authoritarians can throw the cancel hammer at
innocent bystanders with impunity.

The solution, if one exists, isn't going to come from the same amoral just-
following-incentives swamp that created the problem in the first place.
Starting with the trying to collect my email address for no reason sure makes
it look like this is just another attempt to get a slice of the selling-ads-
with-outrage pie.

I hope I'm wrong!

------
gtsteve
I really like this summary format of the terms of service:
[https://ceasefire.net/terms-of-service](https://ceasefire.net/terms-of-
service)

It made it easy to spot this part, which I guess is normally tucked away.
Respect for drawing my attention to it but I have a question - is this a
standard thing that you would find in such a document? It feels like a pretty
serious liability for a user to take on.

> SUMMARY: If we get sued by a third party, you will defend us and pay for all
> losses, damages, etc, if the lawsuit relates to your Content or use of the
> Service, your breach of the Terms, your violation of a third party’s rights,
> violation of your rights by a third party, or an action by you that is
> overtly harmful to another User.

~~~
jconley
Yes, indemnification clauses are common. Nobody wants to go out of business
because of something a customer of theirs did on a platform. Especially when
user generated content is in play.

------
aratno
Needs some sort of a demo or screenshot before I would consider signing up.
Even better, let people lurk (read without creating an account) before
joining.

------
remram
Cool name. What is it? This entire website only has those two inspirational
sentences and a mission statement.

~~~
kuyan
Even their App Store description is vague. It seems like some kind of forum?

    
    
      Home to a spirited exchange of ideas without insults, Ceasefire helps you cut through the noise in a world of diverse views and insights.
      
      Polarization is increasing. The result is pointless bitter arguments, personal attacks, and tribal point-scoring instead of the productive conversations we could be having. It’s clear we need better tools to change this.
      
      Ceasefire is our solution. Every feature is designed for the best experience possible, whether you’re participating or just reading. This includes:
      
      - A focus placed on the issues at hand, preventing the usual popularity contest and its toxic incentives.
      
      - Discussion formats and moderated guidelines that ensure your time is well spent, e.g. rudeness/hostility is prohibited.
      
      - The option to subscribe to topics that matter to you and block those that don’t.
      
      - 'Deltas', which are awarded/received when new insight is gained.

~~~
waterhouse
Ah, deltas—must be inspired by the changemyview subreddit.

I wonder how much it relies on having good human moderators. I also wonder how
users are incentivized to give deltas only to opponents who have persuaded
them, instead of to people they already agreed with. I think in the
changemyview subreddit, you give deltas in comment replies, and there I guess
it would look obviously silly if you gave deltas to those who agreed with you;
that may be a simple resolution for that particular issue.

~~~
scohesc
I wonder if it would be enough to have global moderators create "issues" like:
\- Do you like Havarti or Cheddar? \- Do you support using metric or imperial
as a standard in the USA? \- Do you ... ... ...

Have the users fill out these answers on profile creation (the ones you don't
answer you can't participate in) - and if you contribute on a specific topic
and assign a delta to somebody with the opposite viewpoint, the answer you put
on your profile gets swapped? You could track how often someone changes a
topic on their profile to see if they're "flippy floppy" or if they're fairly
hard-stanced on the issue.

You'd still have to have moderation to make sure you don't have people with
profile-marked anti-topics making posts supporting the viewpoints.

------
renewiltord
Just use /r/NeutralPolitics. And with non-politics stuff, insults don't even
matter. The real problem is people talking about shit they don't know anything
about. And HN, for instance, is full of people politely bullshitting, which
I'm constantly reminded of when I see people talk about things I know lots
about.

------
ab_testing
I might be missing something but there is no about us or any other page to
tell what this is about. There is also no product demo, just a login and sign
up page. Do you think any users will sign up to use your service and provide
you with personal information without knowing what they are signing up for ?

------
thewebcount
Please stop opening a different window or tab for every link on your site. I
don't generally want a new window or tab when I click on "About" or "Terms". I
just want to read them, then go back to what I was doing.

------
karaokeyoga
There's a 12MB PNG on the home page:
[https://ceasefire.net/static/0a3bba35b26395f328158bd05ee9776...](https://ceasefire.net/static/0a3bba35b26395f328158bd05ee97765.png)

------
stx
I am not sure who said it originally but I heard a quote that resinates with
me and this idea. "Honest conflict is better then dishonest harmony."

I like the idea of discussing topics that are controversial. Its actually
annoying when someone tosses out a viewpoint that I disagree with but they are
unwilling to discuss further. I have actually shifted my views over time by
talking it out with people I disagree with. In some cases it strengthened my
conviction or made me more prepared to defend my viewpoint but in some cases I
do change my mind.

The issue is that online it does usually devolve into a flame war where
nothing productive happens. Or the thread is flagged. I am interested to see
if this is really going to be different. I installed it just to see how this
works.

------
tehjoker
Misses the point of why polarization is happening. Part of it is media driven,
but a large part is because there are different classes of people with
different material interests. You can't get a wolf and a lamb to debate and
come to a mutual conclusion where the wolf eats the lamb. It's crazy.

When you debate rich people paying higher taxes or giving up control of
companies vs the laborers that work for them that want more healthcare or
whatnot, they'll each make their separate claim on resources -- money or
labor. It's an irreconcilable conflict.

Debate only works when both sides have an interest in finding some mutual
agreement that works for them, not when resources are in conflict.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> Debate only works when both sides have an interest in finding some mutual
> agreement that works for them, not when resources are in conflict.

I'm aware of two main reasons for engaging in debate:

(1) So the participants can come to an agreement, or at least truly understand
each other's reasons.

(2) If an audience can observe the debate, use the debate as a kind of form of
theater, to present each side's most compelling arguments in an engaging
manner.

IMHO a site like Ceasefire could be useful for either of those goals, assuming
other issues don't bog it down.

------
FailMore
Along the same lines I launched Taaalk [1] this summer, a social network for
conversations. Another HNer launched Debubble [2], a platform for taking
Twitter arguments into private discussions.

[1] [https://taaalk.co](https://taaalk.co)

[2] [https://debubble.me](https://debubble.me)

------
Ecstatify
I always see people saying that we need a platform to have debates. How
Twitter and YouTube comments are a cesspool. Anyone who’s willing to join this
kind of platform aren’t really the people who need help having constructive
debates.

Humans like debating(arguing) think it’s part of our nature, I’m not sure a
platform can solve this problem. It seems like these problems originate at the
gathering information stage and our prejudices impact how we interpret the
data, so no matter how much data you show someone they will interpret it based
on their current belief system.

Everything has to be binary, it’s either X or Y. See it commonly in topics
like ‘what’s the best application architecture’, as soon as someone says “it
depends” you see people rolling their eyes, I think we’re lazy and don’t want
to do the necessary research and just want the answers straight away, once we
get an answer we’re happy with it and see no need to update our knowledge,
that would require us to rethink our beliefs. It’s probably that way for a
reason, imagine you had to research again all the beliefs that you consider
true, it would take a lot of energy.

Even for myself I try to be as open minded as possible, we all have prejudices
built into us, they keep us alive, I’m not sure how I can actually change
them, I see someone who my brain perceives as being dodgy and I change my
behaviour instantly, I react in a way that’s socially acceptable to the
context, it’s really uncomfortable to fight these urges.

I think news media has caused a lot of the prejudices I have, we assume that
some news outlet is honest and is only reporting facts, we just assume
everything they say is a fact. If I see someone from Afghanistan my brain is
telling me act cautiously around them. I’ve never been to Afghanistan, I don’t
know anyone from there yet my brain is sending me signals to be cautious
around this person, logically it makes no sense. Probably the years of
watching the news when the Afghanistan war was going on has imprinted these
beliefs within me.

They say travel broadens the mind, think it’s probably the most effective way
to get people to change their beliefs. You see first hand that maybe you have
inconstancies between your beliefs and reality.

Wish these guys all the best but I don’t think people will charge the beliefs
through online debate, I hope I’m proved wrong though . Could be cool to keep
track on the website so people could acknowledge that they have changed their
position on a topic, the data would be interesting.

------
adamsea
FWIW I don't think "Ceasefire" is a good name. It implies the preexistence of
a war (though not a literal one). And it focuses on the cessation of
hostilities, as opposed to a name which focuses on the act of debating from a
position of mutual respect and intellectual integrity.

------
JackMorgan
You'll never succeed without making the home page just the actual content like
Twitter, Reddit, etc. Show people WHY they want to sign up, and they'll find
the sign up link, don't hide the value proposition behind an email form.

------
iandanforth
Signed up, read a couple threads. I didn't see anything in the conversation
that was particularly civil, or notably higher quality than other discussion
forums. Perhaps that will evolve with time.

------
avree
It's crazy to me that such a simple webpage has a 5 second load time and
special loader animation...

~~~
avree
Oh, maybe it's because their images are huge for no reason... Don't click on
mobile!

------
DoofusOfDeath
I absolutely love the basic idea behind Ceasefire.

I think hosting any online forum, no matter how well-meant, raises some sticky
issues. I'd love to hear their thoughts about certain aspects of their terms
of service [0] and Rules [1]:

> As a User of the Service, you agree not to: ... 1. Use the Service to
> create, publish, copy, share, or distribute any Content, whether in whole or
> in part, which may be libelous, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful to any
> third party.

The legal standards for these concepts vary greatly from country to country.
I'm probably mistaken, but is this saying that a person in the U.S. cannot
post a comment that would be illegal to post from certain authoritarian /
monarchist / theocratic countries. I doubt Chinese courts care about Delaware
law.

> This rule prohibits any submission, comment, or ongoing discussion that
> could endanger an individual, which includes but is not limited to: ...
> Promoting/advocating abuse.

Even in debates regarding what constitutes "abuse"? If the goal is to have
meaningful discussion of touchy topics, debates on these topics couldn't
really happen.

> You have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every
> identifiable individual person in your Content to use the name or likeness
> of each and every such identifiable individual person to enable inclusion
> and use of your Content in any manner contemplated by the Site and these
> Terms of Use.

Wouldn't this mean nobody could even mention, e.g., Bill Gates, without his
explicit permission?

> Your Content is not false or misleading.

Is "false" content _never_ allowed? A good debate typically requires
explicitly stating premises, which are subject to being challenged as the
debate progresses. Should this be tweaked to account for false statements that
seem to have been made in good faith?

> Your Content is not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing,
> libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable (as determined by us).

Are there plans to clarify these at some point? People hold such varied views
of what falls into these categories that it seems impossible to guess what
you'd find acceptable.

And what about debates which focus on _whether or not_ particular views,
practices, etc. are obscene / lewd / filthy?

> Your Content does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third
> party.

According to what country's laws? Again, I doubt the U.K. courts care about
Delaware law.

[0] [https://ceasefire.net/terms-of-service](https://ceasefire.net/terms-of-
service)

[1] [https://ceasefire.net/rules](https://ceasefire.net/rules)

~~~
kerkeslager
> I absolutely love the basic idea behind Ceasefire.

Maybe you can explain what the basic idea is, because I have no idea.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
IIUC, the vision is a discussion platform with unusually strict moderation
rules geared toward productive conversation.

Imagine someone sneaks a big slug of LSD into @dang's mouthwash, and while
he's high on a bad trip, force him to be a prison guard in a reenactment of
the Stanford Prison Experiment. At the end of that, create 100 clones of
whatever remains of him. Put a blindfold over each clone, spin them to the
right for 2*PI revolutions, and smack them with a 4-6 lb. herring. Now make
each of them work as a Ceasefire forum moderator.

At least, that's the picture in my mind. I could be mistaken.

~~~
kerkeslager
I don't think the moderation policy is based on drug- and trauma-induced brain
damage, but if it were, that wouldn't inspire confidence.

I have a hard time seeing how you could say what you've just said, and expect
anyone to see it as positive.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I was just trying to be funny. No offense was intended.

------
nullifidian
Adherents of Critical Theory are not interested in debates. They are
interested in smashing what they view as oppression by any means possible.
Questioning their goals is oppression itself. Facts specifically don't matter,
what matters are the perceptions of the oppressed. So I doubt this project
will be of any help with our modern culture wars.

~~~
notJim
Opponents of Critical Theory are not interested in debates. They are
interested in defending their privileged positions by any means possible.
Questioning their rightful status at the top of the hierarchy is destruction
of liberal norms itself. Facts specifically don't matter, what matters are the
opinions and careers of the elite class. So I doubt this project will help
with out modern culture wars. /s

Hey wow, making strawmen is fun! They're so easy to demolish!

~~~
nisuni
Completely wrong analogy.

Critical theorists just want to shut down any kind of debate whose
conversation does not fit their worldview. I don't think we need examples
here.

On the other hand, there are many opponents of critical theory that are
genuinely interested in debate, and in comparing their worldview with
different ideas.

