andrew/blog
andrew
/
blog
mirror of https://github.com/andrewgioia/blog.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial blog build and test on GH pages

This commit is contained in:
Andrew Gioia 2020-07-13 21:50:56 -04:00
parent 7089cf0a61
commit ddffe17a57
18 changed files with 498 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
categories/index.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>
Andrew Gioia
</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>
<a href="/" class="arrow back">Andrew Gioia</a>
<span class="name">/posts</span><span class="slug"></span>
</h1>
</header>
<h1>Posts</h1>
</body>
</html>

14
categories/index.xml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Categories on Andrew Gioia</title>
<link>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/categories/</link>
<description>Recent content in Categories on Andrew Gioia</description>
<generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
<language>en-us</language>
<atom:link href="https://blog.andrewgioia.com/categories/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
</channel>
</rss>

BIN
icons/andrew.eot Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

32
icons/andrew.svg Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" >
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<metadata>
<json>
<![CDATA[
{
"fontFamily": "andrew",
"majorVersion": 1,
"minorVersion": 0,
"fontURL": "https://andrewgioia.com",
"version": "Version 1.0",
"fontId": "andrew",
"psName": "andrew",
"subFamily": "Regular",
"fullName": "andrew",
"description": "Font generated by IcoMoon."
}
]]>
</json>
</metadata>
<defs>
<font id="andrew" horiz-adv-x="1024">
<font-face units-per-em="1024" ascent="960" descent="-64" />
<missing-glyph horiz-adv-x="1024" />
<glyph unicode="&#x20;" horiz-adv-x="512" d="" />
<glyph unicode="&#xe900;" glyph-name="github" data-tags="Github" d="M339.072 116.651c5.632 1.621 15.147-0.427 14.507-7.893-3.755-8.448-19.499-8.064-21.077 1.707 1.323 2.731 3.627 5.12 6.571 6.187v0zM386.219 120.704c-16.469-2.475-12.587 2.347-16.512-8.789 4.779-8.192 17.707-4.821 21.035 3.157l-4.523 5.632zM297.685 122.624v0c-3.029-1.408-5.035-5.333-2.603-8.192 3.84-6.955 18.133-9.003 19.584 0.597-2.091 6.827-10.581 10.112-16.981 7.595zM270.251 143.958l-6.101-0.469c-7.979-7.808 8.448-22.997 15.275-13.696-0.469 10.112 1.237 4.779-9.173 14.165zM242.645 171.392v0c-8.619-5.589 2.56-21.333 10.709-15.573 4.053 6.869-2.645 17.408-10.709 15.573zM221.739 195.414v0c-2.517-6.272 2.133-12.416 8.192-14.037l4.565 1.707c2.347 7.595-5.163 15.189-12.757 12.331zM208.171 212.48c-3.371 2.048-5.931-1.579-7.851-3.84 2.773-5.333 10.752-9.643 14.763-3.157-1.237 3.243-3.328 6.272-6.912 6.997zM512 896c-108.971-7.168-221.653-34.773-303.744-111.147-18.688-11.861-31.189-31.189-48.256-45.141-70.955-76.117-115.84-176-125.44-279.595-1.749-23.253-3.925-46.763-1.536-70.101 2.688-61.952 18.048-123.307 44.331-179.456 27.392-58.752 67.029-111.659 115.371-154.88 47.616-42.539 103.808-75.563 164.267-96.171 8.491-3.285 18.603-2.901 26.496 1.877 6.571 4.437 9.941 12.459 9.941 20.224-0.128 29.696-0.683 59.392-0.768 89.088-31.189-6.613-64.299-8.96-95.275-0.043-28.16 8.064-53.803 27.605-65.621 54.827-10.197 25.899-24.789 51.243-47.531 68.011-7.723 4.949-15.701 9.941-21.675 16.981-1.792 2.176-3.243 4.693-3.584 7.509 0.768 4.693 5.803 6.528 9.856 7.552 17.493 3.627 35.456-2.389 50.304-11.52 15.445-9.984 28.288-23.979 37.461-39.936 12.843-21.205 32.512-39.253 56.832-45.739 26.923-7.68 55.765-1.92 80.853 9.088 3.328 23.808 12.331 48.043 30.635 64.427-21.931 1.877-43.605 6.144-64.853 11.733-27.947 7.68-55.083 19.456-78.251 37.077-20.736 15.915-37.888 36.523-49.579 59.947-16.341 32.043-23.381 68.053-25.429 103.723-1.195 15.488-1.365 31.104 0.469 46.549 3.797 39.637 21.163 77.653 48.256 106.752-15.189 39.509-11.477 84.139 3.072 123.221 0.896 1.493 1.109 4.395 3.328 4.352 15.787 1.963 31.659-1.579 46.635-6.315 30.037-9.685 57.301-25.984 83.541-43.136 59.52 15.787 122.155 20.053 183.168 11.52 19.456-2.432 38.571-7.040 57.6-11.392 23.467 15.36 47.744 29.909 74.112 39.851 18.219 6.4 37.845 12.416 57.301 9.003 5.589-12.971 9.259-26.837 11.776-40.747 4.608-28.544 3.883-58.837-6.784-86.059 4.523-5.675 9.472-11.093 13.696-17.067 21.248-28.757 33.451-63.957 35.2-99.669 1.237-33.792-1.408-67.925-10.368-100.651-8.149-29.568-22.357-57.856-43.477-80.299-21.333-23.125-49.28-39.253-78.72-49.792-27.819-9.813-57.003-15.189-86.272-18.475 24.576-21.931 32.555-56.661 32.512-88.405-0.085-43.947-0.085-87.936-0.384-131.883-0.384-9.557 5.163-19.712 14.635-22.656 10.496-4.139 21.547 0.128 31.445 3.883 33.152 12.245 65.067 28.075 94.72 47.317 78.848 50.56 142.165 124.757 179.755 210.517 23.296 52.907 36.651 110.080 39.808 167.765 0.299 18.219 0.256 36.437-0.128 54.699-1.707 19.285-3.541 38.528-7.211 57.557-11.477 63.061-35.925 123.733-71.296 177.195-29.696 40.661-60.075 82.261-102.357 111.232h-0.597c-80.811 72.235-192.043 103.253-298.24 106.795z" />
<glyph unicode="&#xe901;" glyph-name="mastodon" data-tags="Mastodon" d="M507.52 896h10.88c36.395-0.555 72.789-1.835 109.056-4.907 34.475-2.859 68.864-7.040 102.827-13.739 26.667-5.376 53.205-12.16 78.464-22.528 17.621-6.955 33.152-18.176 47.403-30.507 23.424-20.48 42.752-45.483 57.344-72.96 20.565-38.656 33.664-81.792 35.413-125.44 7.467-184.363 0.085-231.211-14.251-285.909-3.328-12.8-9.984-30.037-16.981-41.216-14.208-22.528-34.176-40.917-55.68-56.448-36.267-25.813-77.909-43.776-121.131-54.272-16.256-3.968-32.853-6.656-49.493-8.448-40.491-4.821-81.109-9.173-121.899-10.496-38.059-1.365-76.203 0.811-114.133 4.565-43.904 4.48-87.637 11.136-130.731 20.864 0.171-24.491 3.371-49.579 13.995-71.936 6.869-14.507 17.152-27.392 29.952-37.077 20.992-15.872 46.976-23.381 72.661-27.435 16.939-2.731 34.048-4.011 51.2-4.821 20.821-1.109 41.728-1.707 62.592-0.384 40.789 2.475 81.408 9.131 120.661 20.523 1.195-25.771 2.347-51.499 3.541-77.269-26.283-12.715-54.528-20.821-82.987-27.051-34.859-7.424-70.485-11.008-106.112-11.776h-20.224c-51.627 0.939-103.125 7.851-153.344 19.84-16.043 3.84-32.128 7.851-47.573 13.824-27.477 10.325-53.205 25.472-75.136 44.971-23.637 20.907-42.752 46.549-57.557 74.325-22.741 42.709-35.968 89.771-44.587 137.216-13.995 78.293-16 158.123-16.597 237.525v82.048c0.427 7.936 0.128 15.872 0.299 23.808 0.256 44.203 6.997 88.747 23.125 130.091 11.648 29.995 28.373 58.112 49.835 82.133 16.683 18.517 35.925 35.072 58.027 46.805 14.421 6.955 29.611 12.203 44.971 16.725 47.915 13.739 97.536 20.139 147.072 24.448 36.267 2.987 72.704 4.395 109.099 4.907zM333.696 731.392c-20.139-5.504-38.827-16.128-53.973-30.507-18.219-16.939-30.933-39.253-38.187-62.933-6.827-22.059-9.173-45.227-9.088-68.181 0.043-81.451 0-162.901 0.043-244.352 32.555 0 65.109-0.043 97.664 0.043 0 80.939-0.043 161.92 0.043 242.859 0.384 16.427 2.901 33.536 11.733 47.701 6.357 10.283 16.555 17.92 28.075 21.461 12.245 3.755 25.344 4.053 37.973 2.304 11.904-1.792 23.595-6.571 32.427-14.891 9.515-8.747 15.445-20.693 18.901-33.024 4.053-14.507 5.077-29.696 4.992-44.672 0-42.624-0.043-85.205 0-127.829 32.384-0.043 64.725 0 97.067 0 0.043 43.563 0 87.125 0.043 130.688 0.043 16.683 1.579 33.664 7.424 49.451 4.395 11.861 11.776 22.912 22.315 30.165 11.52 7.979 25.771 11.051 39.595 11.136 13.056 0.128 26.624-2.133 37.76-9.301 9.6-6.059 16.555-15.659 20.565-26.155 5.376-13.867 6.571-28.885 6.485-43.648 0-78.763-0.043-157.525 0-236.288 32.555 0 65.109 0.043 97.664-0.043 0 81.451 0 162.901 0 244.352 0 11.691-0.512 23.381-2.005 34.987-2.987 23.467-9.813 46.72-21.973 67.115-12.672 21.504-31.531 39.253-53.76 50.517-25.515 12.928-54.955 16.384-83.2 13.696-16.768-1.664-33.451-6.016-48.469-13.781-20.949-10.709-38.187-28.075-49.835-48.384-7.040-11.947-14.336-23.765-21.205-35.797-0.64 1.92-1.835 3.541-2.859 5.248-6.784 11.435-13.611 22.827-20.437 34.261-12.032 19.541-29.355 35.968-50.133 45.909-19.2 9.387-40.747 13.227-62.037 13.355-14.677 0.085-29.44-1.451-43.605-5.461z" />
<glyph unicode="&#xe902;" glyph-name="arrow" data-tags="arrow-up-right" d="M298.667 597.334h323.669l-353.835-353.835c-16.683-16.683-16.683-43.691 0-60.331s43.691-16.683 60.331 0l353.835 353.835v-323.669c0-23.552 19.115-42.667 42.667-42.667s42.667 19.115 42.667 42.667v426.667c0 5.803-1.152 11.307-3.243 16.341s-5.163 9.728-9.216 13.781c-0.043 0.043-0.043 0.043-0.085 0.085-3.925 3.925-8.619 7.083-13.781 9.216-5.035 2.091-10.539 3.243-16.341 3.243h-426.667c-23.552 0-42.667-19.115-42.667-42.667s19.115-42.667 42.667-42.667z" />
<glyph unicode="&#xe903;" glyph-name="email" data-tags="Email" d="M525.099 896c-285.099 0-482.261-192.128-482.261-469.888 0-281.173 196.608-468.779 491.307-468.779 53.504 0 106.453 6.187 147.029 16.896v100.309c-29.312-9.045-82.816-15.787-134.656-15.787-238.891 0-387.627 140.288-387.627 364.544 0 221.397 147.627 373.547 364.544 373.547 207.872 0 341.419-130.731 341.419-334.677 0-104.789-31.531-170.709-81.109-170.709-30.464 0-48.469 23.637-48.469 63.659v286.208h-129.579v-66.475h-10.709c-22.528 50.688-70.443 80-131.285 80-111.573 0-186.496-92.416-186.496-229.291 0-143.147 77.739-237.781 194.944-237.781 64.811 0 108.757 28.715 131.84 85.632h10.709c15.189-53.504 67.029-85.077 139.733-85.077 140.288 0 226.475 109.867 226.475 287.36 0 250.155-184.235 420.309-455.808 420.309zM507.093 538.795c51.243 0 83.371-44.501 83.371-117.205 0-72.661-31.531-117.205-83.371-117.205-51.285 0-81.707 43.947-81.707 117.205s30.421 117.205 81.707 117.205z" />
<glyph unicode="&#xe904;" glyph-name="arrow-left" data-tags="arrow-up-left" d="M341.333 213.334v323.669l353.835-353.835c16.683-16.683 43.691-16.683 60.331 0s16.683 43.691 0 60.331l-353.835 353.835h323.669c23.552 0 42.667 19.115 42.667 42.667s-19.115 42.667-42.667 42.667h-426.667c-23.552 0-42.667-19.115-42.667-42.667v-426.667c0-23.552 19.115-42.667 42.667-42.667s42.667 19.115 42.667 42.667z" />
</font></defs></svg>
Side by Side

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 8.5 KiB

BIN
icons/andrew.ttf Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
icons/andrew.woff Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
icons/andrew.woff2 Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

44
index.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta name="generator" content="Hugo 0.73.0" />
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>
Andrew Gioia
</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>
<a href="/" class="arrow back">Andrew Gioia</a>
<span class="name">/posts</span><span class="slug"></span>
</h1>
</header>
<main id="home" aria-role="main">
<div class="intro">
</div>
<ul class="list">
<li>
<div>
<a href="https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/facebook/" class="arrow">Boycott Facebook, but not for its free speech</a>
</div>
<time>
July 2020
</time>
</li>
</ul>
</main>
</body>
</html>

25
index.xml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Andrew Gioia</title>
<link>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/</link>
<description>Recent content on Andrew Gioia</description>
<generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<atom:link href="https://blog.andrewgioia.com/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
<title>Boycott Facebook, but not because it supports free speech</title>
<link>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/facebook/</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/facebook/</guid>
<description>Of all the very rational reasons to boycott Facebook or any commercial social media platform, that &#34;its support of free speech&#34; has taken hold is alarming.
Two obvious disclaimers first: Facebook isn&amp;rsquo;t Congress and has no legal requirement to adhere to any concept of free speech, and The Advertisers similarly may choose not to do business with Facebook for any reason at all. When I and many others talk about &amp;ldquo;free speech,&amp;rdquo; however, we pretty much always mean Free Speech, not the First Amendment: the American value, moral standard, and human right that we instinctually hold ourselves and others to.</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

6
package-lock.json generated
View File

@ -5,9 +5,9 @@
"requires": true,
"dependencies": {
"@andrewgioia/blog": {
"version": "1.0.0",
"resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/@andrewgioia/blog/-/blog-1.0.0.tgz",
"integrity": "sha512-FS2TYrAD9f56IGoMYIgkEJ2fnTRVOPqKGtqY81kzJ4FUMQIsPhz1V0G+HWSbIrlM29i3fsHVYEdT5wm8zp9upQ==",
"version": "1.0.1",
"resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/@andrewgioia/blog/-/blog-1.0.1.tgz",
"integrity": "sha512-4ZoYmvNZONWzPJE51GSqDBp6cJYD6ihm7tJQnHsGauAay6ZWpxF7ASzAcTcN3yH0IqhtG9RolYff7DOZtQvE3g==",
"requires": {
"normalize.css": "^8.0.1"
}

2
package.json
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
"description": "Weblog of Andrew Gioia",
"main": "index.html",
"dependencies": {
"@andrewgioia/blog": "*"
"@andrewgioia/blog": "^1.0.1"
},
"devDependencies": {},
"scripts": {

138
posts/facebook/index.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>
Boycott Facebook, but not because it supports free speech &ndash; Andrew Gioia
</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>
<a href="/" class="arrow back">Andrew Gioia</a>
<span class="name">/posts</span><span class="slug">/facebook</span>
</h1>
</header>
<main id="post" aria-role="main">
<aside>
<h1>
Boycott Facebook, but not because it supports free speech
</h1>
<time>
July 5, 2020
</time>
</aside>
<article>
<p class="big">
Of all the very rational <a href="#reasons">reasons to boycott Facebook</a> or any commercial social media platform, <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23627905" target="blank">that "its support of free speech" has taken hold</a> is alarming.</p>
<p><strong>Two obvious disclaimers first:</strong> Facebook isn&rsquo;t Congress and has no legal requirement to adhere to any concept of free speech, and The Advertisers similarly may choose not to do business with Facebook for any reason at all. When I and many others talk about &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; however, we pretty much always mean Free Speech, not the First Amendment: the American value, moral standard, and human right that we instinctually hold ourselves and others to.</p>
<p class="swqm"><em>"Private companies can do whatever they want"</em> is problematic for many reasons, and here it's being used unfairly as a sword to compel Facebook to govern certain types of speech on its platform. <strong>This is a huge mistake with irrevocable damage,</strong> and if free speech as a moral guideline doesn't persuade you then the realities of voluntarily privatizing "truth arbitration" absolutely should.</p>
<p>The answer is simple on its face but difficult given the decade of operant conditioning Facebook and others have been perfecting: <strong>correct and re-frame how we consider and use social media in the first place</strong>.</p>
<h2 id="arbitrate">Problem 1: it&rsquo;s way too hard to determine what&rsquo;s &ldquo;true&rdquo; and what&rsquo;s &ldquo;fake&rdquo;</h2>
<p class="big">Social media by design cannot arbitrate truth, and any path with this as its goal is necessarily doomed.</p>
<p>At some point Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit graduated from personal networks to global platforms that broadcast millions of messages to millions of people every day. Though we still do not admit this, it was at this point they also transformed into <em>communication platforms</em>: core communication infrastructural architecture. Facebook became a phone carrier, and if Verizon can&rsquo;t and doesn&rsquo;t police the content on its phone lines, Facebook shouldn&rsquo;t either.</p>
<p>There are too many messages from too many people at too fast a pace for any reasonable human moderation to enforce rules consistently. The speed and nuance with which news and opinion have evolved have made this an order of magnitude more difficult as well. A headline&rsquo;s truthiness can turn on a <em>word</em>. 25,000 users like it and a new headline replaces it 30 minutes later. Multiply that by thousands every day and if determining truth was even possible, the scope becomes insurmountable anyway.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s unfortunately just impossible though. Two rational adults at opposing ends of the political spectrum can come to opposite conclusions as to truth for most political headlines. Just from today, at random, from CNN, and looking solely at the headline content:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/trump-stone-prison-clemency/index.html">&ldquo;Trump commutes Roger Stone&rsquo;s sentence&rdquo;</a> is factual and easy.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/fact-check-white-house-statement-roger-stone-commutation/index.html">&ldquo;Debunking 12 lies and falsehoods from the White House statement on Roger Stone&rsquo;s commutation&rdquo;</a> is decidedly less so. This response directly contradicts a previous article, who decides if they&rsquo;re lies? Which is &ldquo;true&rdquo; when 2 ostensibly rational adults differ this wildly on <em>12</em> issues of fact?</li>
</ul>
<p>This doesn&rsquo;t even approach actual content examples and nuances. If one of those 12 actually is true is the entire article deemed fake? Does Facebook redact it? When do creative omissions in long quotes or testimony go from &ldquo;helpful clarity&rdquo; to &ldquo;outright misrepresentation&rdquo;? If a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-mount-rushmore.html">news outlet describes a presidential speech as &ldquo;divisive&rdquo;</a> but a moderator or large group of users feel differently, is that article &ldquo;true&rdquo; or &ldquo;fake?&rdquo; Who decides if a message is merely satire or an actual actionable threat or call to violence?</p>
<p class="swqm"><em>"But just because it's hard shouldn't mean we don't try. Plus, machine learning and 'algorithms' can do the work of a thousand human moderators."</em></p>
<p>Determining truth is a problem legal systems have dealt with for millenia and ours has only &ldquo;recently&rdquo; arrived at an expensive, adversarial, intensely thorough, and months-long effort with a due process backbone and an ultimate unanimous determination by 12 other humans. This is obviously the extreme as lives can be on the line, and merely deciding to nuke certain news stories pales in comparison, but <strong>this is how hard it is to reliably determine truth!</strong> We aren&rsquo;t remotely close to handing this over to machines.</p>
<h2 id="public-fora">Problem 2: commercial social media platforms have become the new public square</h2>
<p class="big">Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit are not just carriers, <strong>they're also the town square, courthouse steps, public parks, and shopping malls</strong>. They should not regulate content because of this, and hopefully one day they won't be able to.</p>
<p>As much as I&rsquo;ve hated to admit it, these platforms have become the place where communication happens. People assume to find information here. Our president first tweets official state announcements. If a video isn&rsquo;t on YouTube, outside of certain niches it may as well not exist.</p>
<p>Commercial social media platforms have <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/">usurped print</a> (<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/">and even television</a>) as the primary source of news for most American young people, <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/10/more-americans-than-ever-are-getting-news-from-social-media-even-as-they-say-social-media-makes-news-worse/">despite most saying it&rsquo;s worse</a>!</p>
<p>If these platforms are increasingly becoming the <em>only</em> place where voice or opinions are heard—and where public policy and political issues are presented, illuminated, and debated—they&rsquo;ve become <em>de facto</em> public fora and should be treated as such. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341">Sadly they&rsquo;re not yet actually treated this way</a>, but probably will be if they continue down their censorship paths.</p>
<p>The knee-jerk response to this has always been that &ldquo;these are private companies&rdquo; and they can control their private businesses however they want. <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/456900-government-regulation-of-social-media-would-kill-the-internet-and-free">Much more eloquently</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[S]ocial media companies are private companies, not government actors, and these companies have their own First Amendment right to exclude anyone from their platforms for any reason at all. The government cannot force these companies to open up their sites and associate with viewpoints that their owners and shareholders find objectionable, any more than it can force you to display government-approved speech on your private property.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These arguments sound great at first but quickly fall flat for 3 reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><strong>We already have legal and social precedents for extending 1A requirements to certain private entities.</strong></p>
<p>For almost 100 years, phone companies and other types of common carriers have had constitutional requirements extended to them. In telecom&rsquo;s case, phone companies have to provide basic service to everyone at a fair price and without discrimination, and they&rsquo;re regulated by a separate federal entity. We&rsquo;re currently debating whether ISPs should also fall into this category (they should), and it&rsquo;s not inconceivable that &ldquo;public utility&rdquo; social networks could and should.</p>
<p>Network effects and increasingly easier acquisitions are soon making sure that these platforms are <em>the</em> communication platforms in a public utility sense. And as all &ldquo;real&rdquo; communication becomes centralized here, the case that we treat them as infrastructural &ldquo;dumb pipes&rdquo; gets stronger and stronger.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>It begs the question and presents a false dichotomy in presuming there must be censorship.</strong></p>
<p>There is no requirement that we must choose between Facebook censoring lawful content or the government censoring lawful content; a third option where no one censors lawful content also exists!</p>
<p>Rhetoric that presumes censorship, like &ldquo;Do you trust government bureaucrats to police social media and decide whether content is too politically &lsquo;biased&rsquo;?&rdquo; is leading and presents a bad false dichotomy. Compelling Facebook to be content-neutral and treating it as a dump pipe does not necessitate &ldquo;government bureacrats&rdquo; doing the regulation. There&rsquo;s a reality where we police unlawful content and harassment just like everywhere else, and if we remove that presumption and the threat of scary bureacrats goes away entirely.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Though they&rsquo;re private companies, they&rsquo;re abusing current content liability exemptions and are not being fair.</strong></p>
<p>Facebook and others have been slowly increasing their abuse of <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/2300">Section 230 protections</a>. They have no responsibility when their users post harmful or illegal things, ostensibly claiming that moderation is too difficult, but some will moderate content when and how they please. This has been getting worse, not better, and</p>
<p>While it&rsquo;s possible that Facebook, when told to either remain neutral or face content liability, turns the censorship dial to 11, this is probably correct and probably not all downside either. Platforms cannot have it both ways, and if they want to undergo content-level censorship and become arbiters of fact then they <em>should</em> open themselves to liability. This would open them up to competition from new platforms, or even a publicly run platform, where content is not restricted—competition that&rsquo;s being stifled right now because commercial platforms get a huge advantage by having it both ways.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Without any action soon, commercial social media platforms will become further entrenched as utility-level services in all but name, while also continuing to push out traditional forms of news and media at the same time.</p>
<h2 id="forfeit">Problem 3: private companies should not unilaterally decide acceptable public speech</h2>
<p class="big">Perhaps the most confusing aspect of The Advertisers Boycott, as well as much of the defense of social media censorship over the past few years, is that <strong>we're voluntarily forfeiting centuries of speech protections</strong> into the hands of an oligopoly beholden only to the interests of their shareholders and officers.</p>
<p>Continued requests for Facebook to censor its users&rsquo; content just hands them the keys to controlling acceptable topics and opinions. And as it becomes more normal for them to delete &ldquo;offensive&rdquo; content, we consolidate this power and come to expect it from them, giving up our own responsibility in discerning what&rsquo;s true and conditioning ourselves to rely on corporations to do this important work for us.</p>
<p>Corporations have vested interests that are often very much opposed to public interests. Their reach and dominance can quite literally make a market or sway an election. Giving corporations the power to render a search query return no results, bury a story from appearing on social media at all, hide video evidence of some event, or literally edit the content of the messages posted on their platform is frightening in its societal implications and potential for abuse. The scale of this type of censorship is unmatched and we have no control or due process over them. These are powers that no private entities should ever possess.</p>
<p>Just as bad an outcome is that we kill our instinct to question the things that we read and see, instead assuming they&rsquo;ve been vetted or preapproved and taking them as fact. The cost for this convenience—both consolidating this power into private groups and giving up our own judgment—is also far too high. Over time as we come to expect and await our corporate censors to approve the news we read and messages we share, we&rsquo;ll trust that what we do read is somehow &ldquo;verified&rdquo; with a comfy checkmark. There&rsquo;s no need to read opposing viewpoints, if they&rsquo;re even able to be seen.</p>
<p><strong>To be fair, it&rsquo;s an impossible situation for private corporations offering a public utility.</strong> They have tremendous pressure from every angle to perform often opposing actions. Flagging a story or not flagging a story creates an opinion. Censoring &ldquo;hate speech&rdquo; draws a line and tacitly approves hateful things not yet banned. Political parties and interest groups report each others&rsquo; content as fake. Enabling true free speech fosters actual debate but impinges requests for safe spaces; censorship gives users their bubble but creates groupthink and echo chambers.</p>
<p>These utility-level platforms shouldn&rsquo;t just shouldn&rsquo;t just be banned from censorship for power level reasons, <strong>they shouldn&rsquo;t attempt it <em>because it&rsquo;s impossible</em></strong>. It is simply an impossible balance to maintain that no private entity is equipped to handle.</p>
<h2 id="solution">A solution: decentralize and re-frame our concept of social media</h2>
<p class="big">Social media platforms should revert to just that: <em>social</em> communication channels and communities to share media and information, concomitant with a reevaluation of them as leisure activities, not authoritative sources.</p>
<p>This alone is a win, but the further pipedream would be to decentralize them so that the current monopolies are one of many different ways to access content on a federated protocol. Or, at the very least, offload centralized censorship to local groups or client devices.</p>
<h3 id="social-media-is-a-toy-and-we-should-treat-it-that-way">Social media is a toy and we should treat it that way</h3>
<p>Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit created incredibly engaging social experiences. They no doubt continue to exploit human pyschology to do so but nevertheless they&rsquo;ve succeeded many times over in creating global communities that keep people coming back <em>a lot</em>. While they became incredibly popular, however, their authority somehow also grew with them and we&rsquo;ve completely forgotten their founding as fun social activities. <strong>This was a huge mistake.</strong></p>
<p>These sites are fun to use but are woefully inadequate as &ldquo;serious&rdquo; communication tools; treating them as such and censoring content so that they can remain authoritative is a fool&rsquo;s errand. Re-framing them as social websites removes all of the pressure they have to censor and regulate speech. Delegating responsibility to maintain order onto the small local communities within them also relieves significant pressure. Reducing instead of maximizing the degrees of relationships from whom users see content keeps it more <em>social</em>. Seeing it as fun might also help us to not get offended over everything we see.</p>
<p>No one petitions Snapchat or Discord or even Instagram to censor speech, in large part because they&rsquo;re still seen as fun and not authoritative sources of information or where our <em>president</em> feels the need to make official announcements.</p>
<h3 id="decentralization-though-a-pipedream-is-the-true-fix">Decentralization, though a pipedream, is the true fix</h3>
<p>When Grandpa sends an offensive email forward, Email, Inc. doesn&rsquo;t ban him from Email. We delete it at first and if it starts to become too annoying we filter it, tell him to stop, or block him on our personal block list.</p>
<p>There is no corporate entity controlling Email with its centralized Email servers, shareholders requiring 10% growth every quarter, dark patterns driving Email adoption and use, and datamining. If we want to create an email account we don&rsquo;t have to do it on Email.com, we can do it with any provider (or ourselves!) as long as we interoperate over a published email protocol.</p>
<p>Replace &ldquo;Email&rdquo; with Twitter in the preceding paragraph and we have the real fix to social media&rsquo;s censorship problem, among many other problems. When Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit are merely content aggregators, filters, and user interfaces over their respective networks, censorship is moot. If you want a safe space on the official facebook.com or twitter.com instances then you are absolutely entitled to that, but the censorship there would not then impact what I get to read and engage with over the <code>FB://</code> or <code>TWTR://</code> protocols.</p>
<p>This is federated, decentralized communication over an official protocol. There are attempts to do this now <a href="https://gioia.social/@andrew">that I fully support</a> and would love to see grow, but as long as the monopolies remain unfair monopolies they have too steep of a hill to climb.</p>
<h2 id="reasons">Bonus: better reasons to #BoycottFacebook</h2>
<p class="big">If you've made it this far or came directly here to look for some great reasons to boycott Facebook or any commercial social media platform, here's a nonexhaustive list to get you started!</p>
</article>
</main>
<nav id="TableOfContents">
<ul>
<li><a href="#arbitrate">Problem 1: it&rsquo;s way too hard to determine what&rsquo;s &ldquo;true&rdquo; and what&rsquo;s &ldquo;fake&rdquo;</a></li>
<li><a href="#public-fora">Problem 2: commercial social media platforms have become the new public square</a></li>
<li><a href="#forfeit">Problem 3: private companies should not unilaterally decide acceptable public speech</a></li>
<li><a href="#solution">A solution: decentralize and re-frame our concept of social media</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#social-media-is-a-toy-and-we-should-treat-it-that-way">Social media is a toy and we should treat it that way</a></li>
<li><a href="#decentralization-though-a-pipedream-is-the-true-fix">Decentralization, though a pipedream, is the true fix</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#reasons">Bonus: better reasons to #BoycottFacebook</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<a id="top" class="arrow back" href="#">To the top!</a>
</body>
</html>

115
posts/index.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>
Andrew Gioia
</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>
<a href="/" class="arrow back">Andrew Gioia</a>
<span class="name">/posts</span><span class="slug"></span>
</h1>
</header>
<h1>Posts</h1>
<article>
<h2>Boycott Facebook, but not because it supports free speech</h2>
<p class="big">
Of all the very rational <a href="#reasons">reasons to boycott Facebook</a> or any commercial social media platform, <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23627905" target="blank">that "its support of free speech" has taken hold</a> is alarming.</p>
<p><strong>Two obvious disclaimers first:</strong> Facebook isn&rsquo;t Congress and has no legal requirement to adhere to any concept of free speech, and The Advertisers similarly may choose not to do business with Facebook for any reason at all. When I and many others talk about &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; however, we pretty much always mean Free Speech, not the First Amendment: the American value, moral standard, and human right that we instinctually hold ourselves and others to.</p>
<p class="swqm"><em>"Private companies can do whatever they want"</em> is problematic for many reasons, and here it's being used unfairly as a sword to compel Facebook to govern certain types of speech on its platform. <strong>This is a huge mistake with irrevocable damage,</strong> and if free speech as a moral guideline doesn't persuade you then the realities of voluntarily privatizing "truth arbitration" absolutely should.</p>
<p>The answer is simple on its face but difficult given the decade of operant conditioning Facebook and others have been perfecting: <strong>correct and re-frame how we consider and use social media in the first place</strong>.</p>
<h2 id="arbitrate">Problem 1: it&rsquo;s way too hard to determine what&rsquo;s &ldquo;true&rdquo; and what&rsquo;s &ldquo;fake&rdquo;</h2>
<p class="big">Social media by design cannot arbitrate truth, and any path with this as its goal is necessarily doomed.</p>
<p>At some point Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit graduated from personal networks to global platforms that broadcast millions of messages to millions of people every day. Though we still do not admit this, it was at this point they also transformed into <em>communication platforms</em>: core communication infrastructural architecture. Facebook became a phone carrier, and if Verizon can&rsquo;t and doesn&rsquo;t police the content on its phone lines, Facebook shouldn&rsquo;t either.</p>
<p>There are too many messages from too many people at too fast a pace for any reasonable human moderation to enforce rules consistently. The speed and nuance with which news and opinion have evolved have made this an order of magnitude more difficult as well. A headline&rsquo;s truthiness can turn on a <em>word</em>. 25,000 users like it and a new headline replaces it 30 minutes later. Multiply that by thousands every day and if determining truth was even possible, the scope becomes insurmountable anyway.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s unfortunately just impossible though. Two rational adults at opposing ends of the political spectrum can come to opposite conclusions as to truth for most political headlines. Just from today, at random, from CNN, and looking solely at the headline content:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/trump-stone-prison-clemency/index.html">&ldquo;Trump commutes Roger Stone&rsquo;s sentence&rdquo;</a> is factual and easy.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/fact-check-white-house-statement-roger-stone-commutation/index.html">&ldquo;Debunking 12 lies and falsehoods from the White House statement on Roger Stone&rsquo;s commutation&rdquo;</a> is decidedly less so. This response directly contradicts a previous article, who decides if they&rsquo;re lies? Which is &ldquo;true&rdquo; when 2 ostensibly rational adults differ this wildly on <em>12</em> issues of fact?</li>
</ul>
<p>This doesn&rsquo;t even approach actual content examples and nuances. If one of those 12 actually is true is the entire article deemed fake? Does Facebook redact it? When do creative omissions in long quotes or testimony go from &ldquo;helpful clarity&rdquo; to &ldquo;outright misrepresentation&rdquo;? If a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-mount-rushmore.html">news outlet describes a presidential speech as &ldquo;divisive&rdquo;</a> but a moderator or large group of users feel differently, is that article &ldquo;true&rdquo; or &ldquo;fake?&rdquo; Who decides if a message is merely satire or an actual actionable threat or call to violence?</p>
<p class="swqm"><em>"But just because it's hard shouldn't mean we don't try. Plus, machine learning and 'algorithms' can do the work of a thousand human moderators."</em></p>
<p>Determining truth is a problem legal systems have dealt with for millenia and ours has only &ldquo;recently&rdquo; arrived at an expensive, adversarial, intensely thorough, and months-long effort with a due process backbone and an ultimate unanimous determination by 12 other humans. This is obviously the extreme as lives can be on the line, and merely deciding to nuke certain news stories pales in comparison, but <strong>this is how hard it is to reliably determine truth!</strong> We aren&rsquo;t remotely close to handing this over to machines.</p>
<h2 id="public-fora">Problem 2: commercial social media platforms have become the new public square</h2>
<p class="big">Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit are not just carriers, <strong>they're also the town square, courthouse steps, public parks, and shopping malls</strong>. They should not regulate content because of this, and hopefully one day they won't be able to.</p>
<p>As much as I&rsquo;ve hated to admit it, these platforms have become the place where communication happens. People assume to find information here. Our president first tweets official state announcements. If a video isn&rsquo;t on YouTube, outside of certain niches it may as well not exist.</p>
<p>Commercial social media platforms have <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/">usurped print</a> (<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/">and even television</a>) as the primary source of news for most American young people, <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/10/more-americans-than-ever-are-getting-news-from-social-media-even-as-they-say-social-media-makes-news-worse/">despite most saying it&rsquo;s worse</a>!</p>
<p>If these platforms are increasingly becoming the <em>only</em> place where voice or opinions are heard—and where public policy and political issues are presented, illuminated, and debated—they&rsquo;ve become <em>de facto</em> public fora and should be treated as such. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341">Sadly they&rsquo;re not yet actually treated this way</a>, but probably will be if they continue down their censorship paths.</p>
<p>The knee-jerk response to this has always been that &ldquo;these are private companies&rdquo; and they can control their private businesses however they want. <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/456900-government-regulation-of-social-media-would-kill-the-internet-and-free">Much more eloquently</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[S]ocial media companies are private companies, not government actors, and these companies have their own First Amendment right to exclude anyone from their platforms for any reason at all. The government cannot force these companies to open up their sites and associate with viewpoints that their owners and shareholders find objectionable, any more than it can force you to display government-approved speech on your private property.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These arguments sound great at first but quickly fall flat for 3 reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><strong>We already have legal and social precedents for extending 1A requirements to certain private entities.</strong></p>
<p>For almost 100 years, phone companies and other types of common carriers have had constitutional requirements extended to them. In telecom&rsquo;s case, phone companies have to provide basic service to everyone at a fair price and without discrimination, and they&rsquo;re regulated by a separate federal entity. We&rsquo;re currently debating whether ISPs should also fall into this category (they should), and it&rsquo;s not inconceivable that &ldquo;public utility&rdquo; social networks could and should.</p>
<p>Network effects and increasingly easier acquisitions are soon making sure that these platforms are <em>the</em> communication platforms in a public utility sense. And as all &ldquo;real&rdquo; communication becomes centralized here, the case that we treat them as infrastructural &ldquo;dumb pipes&rdquo; gets stronger and stronger.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>It begs the question and presents a false dichotomy in presuming there must be censorship.</strong></p>
<p>There is no requirement that we must choose between Facebook censoring lawful content or the government censoring lawful content; a third option where no one censors lawful content also exists!</p>
<p>Rhetoric that presumes censorship, like &ldquo;Do you trust government bureaucrats to police social media and decide whether content is too politically &lsquo;biased&rsquo;?&rdquo; is leading and presents a bad false dichotomy. Compelling Facebook to be content-neutral and treating it as a dump pipe does not necessitate &ldquo;government bureacrats&rdquo; doing the regulation. There&rsquo;s a reality where we police unlawful content and harassment just like everywhere else, and if we remove that presumption and the threat of scary bureacrats goes away entirely.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Though they&rsquo;re private companies, they&rsquo;re abusing current content liability exemptions and are not being fair.</strong></p>
<p>Facebook and others have been slowly increasing their abuse of <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/2300">Section 230 protections</a>. They have no responsibility when their users post harmful or illegal things, ostensibly claiming that moderation is too difficult, but some will moderate content when and how they please. This has been getting worse, not better, and</p>
<p>While it&rsquo;s possible that Facebook, when told to either remain neutral or face content liability, turns the censorship dial to 11, this is probably correct and probably not all downside either. Platforms cannot have it both ways, and if they want to undergo content-level censorship and become arbiters of fact then they <em>should</em> open themselves to liability. This would open them up to competition from new platforms, or even a publicly run platform, where content is not restricted—competition that&rsquo;s being stifled right now because commercial platforms get a huge advantage by having it both ways.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Without any action soon, commercial social media platforms will become further entrenched as utility-level services in all but name, while also continuing to push out traditional forms of news and media at the same time.</p>
<h2 id="forfeit">Problem 3: private companies should not unilaterally decide acceptable public speech</h2>
<p class="big">Perhaps the most confusing aspect of The Advertisers Boycott, as well as much of the defense of social media censorship over the past few years, is that <strong>we're voluntarily forfeiting centuries of speech protections</strong> into the hands of an oligopoly beholden only to the interests of their shareholders and officers.</p>
<p>Continued requests for Facebook to censor its users&rsquo; content just hands them the keys to controlling acceptable topics and opinions. And as it becomes more normal for them to delete &ldquo;offensive&rdquo; content, we consolidate this power and come to expect it from them, giving up our own responsibility in discerning what&rsquo;s true and conditioning ourselves to rely on corporations to do this important work for us.</p>
<p>Corporations have vested interests that are often very much opposed to public interests. Their reach and dominance can quite literally make a market or sway an election. Giving corporations the power to render a search query return no results, bury a story from appearing on social media at all, hide video evidence of some event, or literally edit the content of the messages posted on their platform is frightening in its societal implications and potential for abuse. The scale of this type of censorship is unmatched and we have no control or due process over them. These are powers that no private entities should ever possess.</p>
<p>Just as bad an outcome is that we kill our instinct to question the things that we read and see, instead assuming they&rsquo;ve been vetted or preapproved and taking them as fact. The cost for this convenience—both consolidating this power into private groups and giving up our own judgment—is also far too high. Over time as we come to expect and await our corporate censors to approve the news we read and messages we share, we&rsquo;ll trust that what we do read is somehow &ldquo;verified&rdquo; with a comfy checkmark. There&rsquo;s no need to read opposing viewpoints, if they&rsquo;re even able to be seen.</p>
<p><strong>To be fair, it&rsquo;s an impossible situation for private corporations offering a public utility.</strong> They have tremendous pressure from every angle to perform often opposing actions. Flagging a story or not flagging a story creates an opinion. Censoring &ldquo;hate speech&rdquo; draws a line and tacitly approves hateful things not yet banned. Political parties and interest groups report each others&rsquo; content as fake. Enabling true free speech fosters actual debate but impinges requests for safe spaces; censorship gives users their bubble but creates groupthink and echo chambers.</p>
<p>These utility-level platforms shouldn&rsquo;t just shouldn&rsquo;t just be banned from censorship for power level reasons, <strong>they shouldn&rsquo;t attempt it <em>because it&rsquo;s impossible</em></strong>. It is simply an impossible balance to maintain that no private entity is equipped to handle.</p>
<h2 id="solution">A solution: decentralize and re-frame our concept of social media</h2>
<p class="big">Social media platforms should revert to just that: <em>social</em> communication channels and communities to share media and information, concomitant with a reevaluation of them as leisure activities, not authoritative sources.</p>
<p>This alone is a win, but the further pipedream would be to decentralize them so that the current monopolies are one of many different ways to access content on a federated protocol. Or, at the very least, offload centralized censorship to local groups or client devices.</p>
<h3 id="social-media-is-a-toy-and-we-should-treat-it-that-way">Social media is a toy and we should treat it that way</h3>
<p>Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit created incredibly engaging social experiences. They no doubt continue to exploit human pyschology to do so but nevertheless they&rsquo;ve succeeded many times over in creating global communities that keep people coming back <em>a lot</em>. While they became incredibly popular, however, their authority somehow also grew with them and we&rsquo;ve completely forgotten their founding as fun social activities. <strong>This was a huge mistake.</strong></p>
<p>These sites are fun to use but are woefully inadequate as &ldquo;serious&rdquo; communication tools; treating them as such and censoring content so that they can remain authoritative is a fool&rsquo;s errand. Re-framing them as social websites removes all of the pressure they have to censor and regulate speech. Delegating responsibility to maintain order onto the small local communities within them also relieves significant pressure. Reducing instead of maximizing the degrees of relationships from whom users see content keeps it more <em>social</em>. Seeing it as fun might also help us to not get offended over everything we see.</p>
<p>No one petitions Snapchat or Discord or even Instagram to censor speech, in large part because they&rsquo;re still seen as fun and not authoritative sources of information or where our <em>president</em> feels the need to make official announcements.</p>
<h3 id="decentralization-though-a-pipedream-is-the-true-fix">Decentralization, though a pipedream, is the true fix</h3>
<p>When Grandpa sends an offensive email forward, Email, Inc. doesn&rsquo;t ban him from Email. We delete it at first and if it starts to become too annoying we filter it, tell him to stop, or block him on our personal block list.</p>
<p>There is no corporate entity controlling Email with its centralized Email servers, shareholders requiring 10% growth every quarter, dark patterns driving Email adoption and use, and datamining. If we want to create an email account we don&rsquo;t have to do it on Email.com, we can do it with any provider (or ourselves!) as long as we interoperate over a published email protocol.</p>
<p>Replace &ldquo;Email&rdquo; with Twitter in the preceding paragraph and we have the real fix to social media&rsquo;s censorship problem, among many other problems. When Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit are merely content aggregators, filters, and user interfaces over their respective networks, censorship is moot. If you want a safe space on the official facebook.com or twitter.com instances then you are absolutely entitled to that, but the censorship there would not then impact what I get to read and engage with over the <code>FB://</code> or <code>TWTR://</code> protocols.</p>
<p>This is federated, decentralized communication over an official protocol. There are attempts to do this now <a href="https://gioia.social/@andrew">that I fully support</a> and would love to see grow, but as long as the monopolies remain unfair monopolies they have too steep of a hill to climb.</p>
<h2 id="reasons">Bonus: better reasons to #BoycottFacebook</h2>
<p class="big">If you've made it this far or came directly here to look for some great reasons to boycott Facebook or any commercial social media platform, here's a nonexhaustive list to get you started!</p>
</article>
</body>
</html>

25
posts/index.xml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Andrew Gioia</title>
<link>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/</link>
<description>Recent content on Andrew Gioia</description>
<generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<atom:link href="https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<item>
<title>Boycott Facebook, but not because it supports free speech</title>
<link>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/facebook/</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/facebook/</guid>
<description>Of all the very rational reasons to boycott Facebook or any commercial social media platform, that &#34;its support of free speech&#34; has taken hold is alarming.
Two obvious disclaimers first: Facebook isn&amp;rsquo;t Congress and has no legal requirement to adhere to any concept of free speech, and The Advertisers similarly may choose not to do business with Facebook for any reason at all. When I and many others talk about &amp;ldquo;free speech,&amp;rdquo; however, we pretty much always mean Free Speech, not the First Amendment: the American value, moral standard, and human right that we instinctually hold ourselves and others to.</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

1
robots.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1 @@
User-agent: *

30
sitemap.xml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"
xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<url>
<loc>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/</loc>
<lastmod>2020-07-01T00:00:00+00:00</lastmod>
<priority>0</priority>
</url>
<url>
<loc>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/</loc>
<lastmod>2020-07-01T00:00:00+00:00</lastmod>
<priority>0</priority>
</url>
<url>
<loc>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/posts/facebook/</loc>
<lastmod>2020-07-01T00:00:00+00:00</lastmod>
</url>
<url>
<loc>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/categories/</loc>
</url>
<url>
<loc>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/tags/</loc>
</url>
</urlset>

28
tags/index.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>
Andrew Gioia
</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>
<a href="/" class="arrow back">Andrew Gioia</a>
<span class="name">/posts</span><span class="slug"></span>
</h1>
</header>
<h1>Posts</h1>
</body>
</html>

14
tags/index.xml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Tags on Andrew Gioia</title>
<link>https://blog.andrewgioia.com/tags/</link>
<description>Recent content in Tags on Andrew Gioia</description>
<generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
<language>en-us</language>
<atom:link href="https://blog.andrewgioia.com/tags/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
</channel>
</rss>