Hacker News Reader

Wars are not "hatred". They are action. Specifically, action driven by hatred.

The internet is not a collection of action, rather, it is a collection of information.

If we do anything to restrict information, that very action restricts innovation and understanding.

> Most people on the Internet are actually spending their time in a small number of ecosystems, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube.

The very fact that most internet users spend their time on centralized networks lends itself as a perfect example of how controlled, but uncategorized information networks are detrimental to discussion. Imagine all of Reddit were on one subreddit. The lack of categorization would lead to an unruly, and useless platform for communication. The reason Reddit is so successful is that it promotes specific conversation about any topic, without restriction. The only way that is feasible is through categorization, via subreddits.

> we need an Internet 2.0

We need an "internet 2.0" to promote the ecosystem that existed with "internet 0.1". We need decentralization (like ZeroNet, IPFS, etc.) to promote free, categorized, distribution of information.

Wars are actions driven by hatred when hatred becomes the status quo.

Hatred can be the status quo of the Internet. The Internet may just be a collection of information, but it is continually being shaped by user actions. The Internet is also increasingly taking a large part of our lives, to the point that what happens there also affects the "real" world. We effectively live in two worlds now which influence each other.

And like all systems, the Internet is subject to entropy, and to an extent, I agree with you: restricting information is harsh, a better design of the Internet that leads to better presentation of information is much more preferable.

But how this Internet 2.0 looks like, to be honest I have no idea. I see your point about categorisation but even Reddit can spill into other ecosystems which may have less categorisation, like a meme gone viral on Twitter. Most of these ecosystems are designed with a strong characteristic for virality built in - connectedness that is further enhanced by a sophisticated understanding of human psychology and targeted applications (e.g. personalisation.) (Dear lord that is mouthy.)

And that's the big question really. With super connectedness, and entropy, is it inevitable then that hatred eventually becomes the status quo?

> even Reddit can spill into other ecosystems which may have less categorisation, like a meme gone viral on Twitter.

That is exactly the problem. The most popular communication platforms on the internet are Facebook and Twitter. These platforms do not have enough categorization. Because of that fact, those who choose to get information through these platforms are vulnerable to fake news, targeted advertising, gossip, etc.

We need a decentralized internet to protect from censorship, but we also need decentralized platforms to categorize information (and communication) and thereby promote education and creation.

I have a feeling that we agree on the issue at heart. Thanks for being courteous and responding back :)

Internet 2.0 is something that I struggle with, there's just way too many factors to consider. On paper (or mind) a decentralised internet looks neat, but making it real is akin to putting a man on mars. Platforms, for one, are commercialised so that they can afford to be sustained. They are also designed to attract a very large active user base, which is again ultimately commercial but would the Internet have billions of users today if there was no YouTube, no Facebook?

But I guess the advantage of having Internet 1.0 is that there are many learnt lessons and many good ideas up for grabs. I would also like to see people more free in making decisions and less prone to instant gratification, rather than being stuck in the "hooked" cycles so fine-tuned by current platforms. But, sigh, that also means a more mature world. I know many who overlook Hacker News by virtue of its "old fashioned" UI...

There's minimal, necessary limits to free speech after it happens: shutting down child pornographers, violent extremists, 0day exploits and other sites that are obviously, imminently dangerous. Other than that, Neo-Nazis and other undesirable/kook groups must be allowed to gather and speak in order to consistently protect and defend the principles of open society.

You'll never get that to fly in today's political climate. We have a serious problem of righteous minds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind

While properly calibrated to the recent past, that sentiment comes across as unnecessarily defeatist.

Get what to fly?

>Most people on the Internet are actually spending their time in a small number of ecosystems, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube. Each of these has its own set of rules, which ultimately defines how we communicate and therefore the limitations.

Or ecosystems like Hacker News. Let's shut down Hacker News. No? Because you like it? Your subjective judgment should rule?

Where was I even subjective there? Of course the way the systems are designed affect how we communicate and how information is made available, whether for good or for bad. Now it's necessary to consider them because hatred has gone viral - Internet 2.0 is one radical solution (whatever it may be), but patching up here and there may be the best realistic solution. Shrugs, I don't know, it's an imagined WIP in my head too. But we have to drop the utopian view in order to get closer to fixing it.

(Apologies if this comes across as a harsh tone - it's not meant at all.)

You're subjective when you mention some platforms but leave out others.

"in a small number of ecosystems, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube and so on."

Hope that's clearer now.

Or like, just ignore the hatred? It's just words.

I think you're missing the point. I took it as a suggestion that dissatisfaction is the mother of invention.

There's a big jump from dissatisfaction to hatred, though.

1997 called, they want their idealism back.

How will it be different this time? I recall all the hype of the late 90s Internet, being a open, decentralized and democratized communications medium that will heal all wounds, and more importantly, treat censorship as damage and route around it ("International borders are mere speed bumps in the Information Superhighway").