卫报发布了一篇文章,宣称Fediverse除了Gab之外。还有着几十个通过p2p技术和开源软件从事极右政治,宣扬阴谋论和新纳粹主义的实例。这篇文章还引用一个叫做 Megan Squire的"专家"的说法,声称主流的开源文化长期以来一直是"极端厌女主义"的体现,"对社会充满了毒害","虐待着所有人"。该文章指出,类似于Pleroma, Mastodon 和 Matrix 的社交平台和Facebook, Twitter这些巨头不一样,由于它们的去中心化特性,这些平台是无法遭到审查的。在Guardian看来,这是一个很严重的问题,因为这意味着权威机构和技术巨头不能审查言论,Guardian暗示道,要打击"仇恨言论" 和 "纳粹主义",就要把言论置于政府和巨头的控制之下,这些去中心化平台是不允许存在的。

"Beyond Gab’s ambiguous place in the fediverse, the Guardian found dozens of servers using peer-to-peer, open source tools, which were either exclusively or disproportionately devoted either to far-right politics, or to conspiracy theories that mainstream social media services have previously cracked down on, including coronavirus denialism, “incel” culture and neo-Nazism."

"Megan Squire is a professor of computer science at Elon University who has published research on both the far right and open source software communities. She says that “the dominant open source culture historically has been one of extreme misogyny, unfounded meritocracy, toxicity and abuse of everyone,” and that Smith is one of those resisting efforts to change that culture."

"Some open source communications platforms go a step beyond this, and do away with the need for servers altogether by implementing a “peer-to-peer” network. PeerTube, for example, allows users to browse and watch videos in a similar way to YouTube, but instead of streaming it to users from a central server, each user watching a video acts as a relay point.

The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one owns them. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years."

amp.theguardian.com/world/2021

poa.st/objects/3c198fd5-7927-4

@Vectorfield@qoto.org poa.st ……那个确实是纳粹节点啊​:nacho_look:​

@376668346
这里有两个问题,第一个问题是纳粹实例的标准是什么,在什么样的情况下我们可以认为一个实例是纳粹实例?我的看法是当一个实例将纳粹主义确立为官方意识形态或组织原则时,这个实例便可以被认为是纳粹实例。我刚才在搜索引擎上搜索了poa.st + nazi,并没有找到poa.st是纳粹实例的证据,也许是因为该实例关闭了目录索引。我对poa.st此前没有任何接触。而你也许对poa.st的详细信息有比较多的了解,我希望你能提供该实例为什么是纳粹实例的理由。

第二个问题是对于纳粹实例和纳粹用户应该采取什么态度(我认为作为纳粹主义者的个体用户和以纳粹主义为组织原则的实例是有很大的不同的),对于持纳粹主义观点的个体用户,我的观点是,除非该实例明确表明禁止纳粹用户,他们有权在Fediverse的各实例上注册并且发表观点,或建立自己的实例,但如果有明确的证据表明他通过Fediverse在现实中从事违法的活动,那么法律机构或实例管理员便可以依法对其惩罚。我不赞成以反纳粹的言论对纳粹用户和言论进行清理,首先,在不妨碍他人权益的情况下,言论自由是每个人的权利,是民主制度的核心原则之一,基于意识形态的言论审查本身要比纳粹言论的危险大得多。其次,纳粹一词在今日已被大幅滥用,覆盖了各个政治光谱,反纳粹在实际操作中几乎不可避免地无限扩大。第三,最重要的一点,要对所有的纳粹言论进行审查,只可能依靠一个权力高度集中,控制力极强的中央权力才能实现,这种权力的存在本身就是一个危险得多的炸弹。

对于纳粹实例,我的观点是,首先按照法律规定的来,违法了就必须接受惩罚,合法的话公权力便不宜干涉,但由于纳粹实例的侵略性一般比单独的纳粹个体要高,因此人们应该对其保持高度警惕,不过前提是该实例的确是纳粹实例。若该实例只是自说自话,不打算传教,人们不必过于担忧,但如果该实例充满了意识形态狂热,打算传播信仰,那么其它实例就应该组织起来,积极地与之战斗了。

以上是我的看法,不论以那种角度来看,Guardian所主张的通过技术巨头和政府机构对思想言论进行的中心化控制和对去中心化社交平台进行的封杀(虽然没有直说,但意思很明显),都是对思想自由和言论自由的无耻攻击,体现的都是一种反民主的危险倾向。

@Vectorfield@qoto.org
1.
https://poa.st/@RacistVirgin
https://poa.st/@Aimin
https://poa.st/@mac_ack
https://poa.st/@Plerome
https://poa.st/@guttersessions
还有在
https://poa.st/search 搜索关键词,比如“racist”,立刻打开新世界的大门

2.
没有人在尝试让公权力介入审查。对于poa.st这种充满了种族歧视、neo-nazi发言、仇恨言论的实例,我们一向都是躲着走的,通过包括实例屏蔽等方式停止与这些人交流。

3.
我没有看到任何Guardian尝试诱导读者思考“应该让政府和大公司介入集中化言论审查”的迹象,你能截一段给我看看吗?

Follow

@376668346

1.你说得有道理,这几个人的主页我都看了,他们的确是在宣传种族主义和纳粹主义,管理员甚至自豪地自称自己是种族主义者和纳粹主义者,不过这些人用的是二次元头像,时间线上多是二次元图片和牢骚,还有一些种族主义的侮辱词汇,例如nigger,我搜索racist的结果有30多个,大都支持种族歧视,但是Nazist和Nazism 的结果只有一个,这些人有的在头像旁边加上了纳粹符号,有的转一些歌颂纳粹主义的表情包,有的发一些期待纳粹征服世界之类的话,我认为的确可以说这个实例是一个宣扬种族主义和纳粹的实例,但其用户对纳粹主义停留在表面的符号宗拜(不排除我了解的不够多的情况),我认为这类的纳粹主义者还是应该和另一类纳粹主义者相区分,即组织严密,思想同质的纳粹主义的,但宽泛而言,可以说这是一个种族主义和纳粹主义实例。

2.我认为屏蔽是正确的做法,如果这些的确在进行违法活动,公权力介入也是应该的,当然了,我们并不生活在同一个国家,也管不了别国的事,我们自己的问题更多,更复杂。

3.The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one owns them. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years.

" The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends "

“Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.

But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.

“You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.

This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. After the far right-friendly social media site Gab encountered hosting problems and app store bans, it rebuilt itself on Mastodon’s software, despite determined opposition from the platform’s creators and users.

文章提到,假如用户使用的是去中心化平台,这些平台就不会因为外部的施压而封杀"问题用户"。 (去中心化保护问题用户)

文章还提到,"极端主义者"长年以来一直在推行在研发这类技术。(研发去中心化和p2p等技术的是坏人)

文章还提到,因为这些技术无法被监控,无法被传唤,极端主义者就可以利用这些技术进行宣传和组织。(使用这些技术的是坏人)

我看到了Double edged sword,但总体而言这篇文章对于去中心化等技术表示的是敌意。

@Vectorfield @376668346 the correct way to address nazi problem is to defer to law. It makes no sense to take down platform. Why not ban English since neonazis speak English? Why not ban telephone because neonazis use smart phones? I stopped using Facebook because everyone on my facebook is successful and beautiful 35 yr old F500 director with 2-3 kids and sporting 6 pack, and all of a sudden I am a facist because I am using a platform that doesn’t stress that I need to buy Botox 😓😓😓

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.