A decentralized platform can be moderated.
ModClub perfects this ideology.
This looks great. The white paper will go great with tomorrow’s coffee
When talking about Decentralized social media platforms, it isn’t that the users get complete freedom of expression, but rather the creators/moderators. They are decentralizing by breaking away from the centralized social media source(s). People get to create their own platforms with their own rules to be followed. Many of these platforms will most likely be designed to do 2 things:
- Keep everyone on topic.
- Penalize people who are being disruptive.
These are profit-making entities, and bad performers can bring revenues down. So ya- for them it’s Viva Las Censorship!
I Blame 2 things:
- All the bad launch pr.
- People whose sum total of cryptocurrency knowledge comes from Youtube and Investment forums. They get what they think are really great ideas, but since there isn’t anyone in these places who understand the tech (let alone uses it), they just say that it’s sounds great! The come here, and for the first time encounter the actual experts. They usually find out that their idea isn’t valid, and due to gulf of knowledge which has to be bridged in explaining why- they feel majorly slighted.
I mean, how many of you know that the whole idea of web3 came from Tim Berners-Lee paper in 1999? I do, because I first read that paper back in '99. And If I make one comment about the topic of censorship on online forums, it is that people are far more interested in keeping bad actors out than being able to say anything they want.
2 Likes
I agree with your logic… however, that should be the responsibility of the individuals consumer on the site not the site itself… Imagine if AWS, Google, etc monitored and unapproved our content before it ever hit the site. It’s a simple forum we’re we should be free to express ourselves and learn about the new technology…
If they are going to wait for everyone to be experts before they can onboard… they will be waiting a long ass time. And if they are going to have the power to flag everything they don’t like then the whole thing should be exclusive to programmers and developers with master degrees only. I advertised my site and ask for help from the community on how to move it to IC only to get flagged over and over. Of course I want the community to check out my site and evaluate it but I don’t need them to decide if it’s a good idea. Again what if the other guys decided what’s good or bad going on their platform rather than allowing anyone to access it, build on it and let the community decide if it’s good or not. I even applied for the grant to only get denied because according to them my project is not what they’re looking for… It appears to me that they are looking for sites that they can control and monetize on their own platform. I’m not sure how this would ever reach the masses with that kind of thinking. My site is currently being hosted on ifasnet, imagine if they policed every site that registered with them and monitored and deleted / flag all of the comments in the forums where we go to learn and ask questions and share our ideas… They wouldn’t have any customers.
We don’t have a dislike option and then we respond to comments we should really ignore.
The discussion owner could then remove the comments and only when there are dislikes.
The discussion owner should not be allowed to dislike.
The discussion owner is most likely to be available to update the discussion and if the discussion owner is biased the discussion will be ignored by the community.
Simple and easy.
What about the discussion owner’s friends, are they allowed to dislike? You just want to keep a permanent record of anti-foundation narrative on as many threads as possible.
And sometimes we ignore comments we should really respond to… so i will try to make my point again:
What you are describing has been tried already, it is called centralized authority. Sure, you take steps to limit the power that the discussion owner has, but what happens if these measures are not enough? You are also assuming that the discussion owner is super wise, and would only remove comments that were genuinely hateful, rather than just in opposition. A couple questions:
How do you deal with two groups that disagree? Each would put dislike on the other, and each discussion owner would censor the other group. The result is two echo chambers.
What happens when third (neutral) party want to understand both sides of the debate? The cannot find answer + response, because everything has been removed by the censor, so this doesn’t support the wider activity of meaning-making in the community.
As you can see, not so simple, not so easy. Decentralized policy is harder to arrive at than centralized policy, and requires that people step outside of their own opinions (but not abandon them entirely) in order arrive at a compromise.
1 Like
You are both right, but that was my point and how I proved what both of you just repeated was played out, read the above, for your examples.
The last couple of messages were only a push to sell a product.
But there was a third comment that seemed to try and get this discussion on tract so I responded foolishly as I only see more tearing down.
The statistics that give the visits and comments on the discussions show many don’t get into the discussion but showed the interest and I wonder why.
The point of a discussion is not that it is impossible so we should not try but to nut out and see if we can make small improvements to a problem. The bad behavior is well known and I feel why many will not get into a discussion.
1 Like
The heading and this discussion was a ruse that I devised after a constant attack on a discussion owner where I believe they made good points but soon after the bullies pounced that resulted in a sociological experience of conflict that undermined their demeanor.
The discussions are all mostly the same.
The Unhelpful, Bullies and Legends will echo the same old failures and responding is futile as display in this discussion that the above meant nothing and continue with the same old arguments.
Why not as an experiment, put a Unlike button on a comment with an accumulator and see if the visitors to a discussion that may feel uncomfortable responding have their say without personal conflict?
Maybe the Unhelpful, Bullies and Legends are concerned their feelings may get hurt if they get a Unlike.
You mean like all your mates above
They have been doing this for some time already.To be able to offer their services in China, they have to comply with the China Firewall. And in many other parts of the world, governments want the centralized cloud providers snooping on their citizens.
And in case you think they already aren’t monitoring you for an oppourtunity for financial gain…
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/amazon-copied-products-rigged-search-results-promote-its-own-brands-documents-2021-10-13/
Decentralization means not having to worry about your businesses’s distribution channel undercutting you, because stealing your business is just another profit oppourtunity for them. Many people lost their businesses when Amazon Basics started. Amazon wasn’t supposed to be using sales data from the merchants who had set up their own Amazon store. And, Amazon was most definitely not going to be in competition with anyone who was already using their site to sell on. After all, they had made a promise not to.
Decentralization means having control over your privacy. With AI technology being where it currently is at, the more data there is about you out there, the more information there is to train an AI model on. In the U.S., you are videoed/monitored/photographed many times over each day (better than 10+). Think about a program which could analyze you each and every single time you get media-captured. What if the AI was instead used to try and extract things like passwords or other sensitive information from you? With enough data to train on, this could be possible.
1 Like
I think we all realize or I certainly do, about what you are saying. It is the reason why I don’t use AWS.
But we have no control of Web2 but we do have this project that could overcome many of these problems you have pointed out.
Knowing what you know about the intentions of those 2 comments which was nothing more than a push of their services for financial gain. What can you advise to stop web2 behavior taking control of a discussion on this forum.
We are seeing more and more comments being left on discussions that are pushing their own agendas and then there are those who “Speak bombastically from a high horse” to intimidate.
While we have guidelines https://forum.dfinity.org/guidelines It seems somewhat biased and slow and allows the damage to be done before anything is done.
I suggested a solution but maybe you could offer another.