171–180 of 361 posts
But why? Why would Meta, an ad driven for profit company, build a decentralized platform? If there is enough centralization to tatget users and show them ads (which might be the incentive of Meta), is it really decentralized?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's roughly how Mastodon works. Each instance is responsible for moderation of their own users. If an instance does not meet arbitrary standards of moderation, other instances may choose not to federate with them, but nothing can stop willing instances from federating.
And allow us to kick out any fascist guy and/or instance from the federated network.
You find people here in the west who hate Jews claiming to be anti-facists and people starting a massive invasion of a very peaceful central European country - all while repeating much of Hitlers playbook - while claiming they do it to crush the "Nazis" there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So, you have no problem, I assume, with the "woke" governors banning or revising classic children's books to remove anything offensive? Right? You know, to prevent "government employees and licensed child educators from providing certain books to children, in the context of government mandated education." I'll wait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you realize that roads are optional? you don't have to leave your house to talk to friends. do you realize that using the mail service is optional? nobody forces you to write post cards. do you realize that electricity is optional? you can get a shack in the forest and burn wood. do you realize that water pipes are optional? you can dig for your own ground water. the world is not made of solipsistic individuals. i…
> "let's ditch social networks!" > "You realize they're optional, right?" > "Technically so are roads and mail and electricity and water!" so... are you saying we should ditch roads and mail and electricity and water? Your response is one of the sillier non sequiturs I've seen in a while, and I browse Reddit.
> Individual servers would let different groups set their own community standards, though likely with a “floor” of rules set by Meta, in a fashion similar to how Reddit’s individual communities work. This is not praise. Reddit bans people for expressing widely held beliefs. Subreddit mods are required to enforce the site-wide rules regardless of the subreddit's own preferences. As another commenter put it [1], the pr…
Widely held beliefs Can you elaborate on these "Widely held beliefs"? You appear to have done some research into the topic so I think it would be beneficial to your point if you gave examples of the beliefs. Because of Bandwagon fallacy, because we know just because something is widely-held doesn't necessarily make it valid, so these popular beliefs, I'd like to see what they are.
My reddit account was permanently banned for _upvoting_ vaccine hesitancy - i.e. that people shouldn't be forced to take a vaccine they don't want to take.
> Individual servers would let different groups set their own community standards, though likely with a “floor” of rules set by Meta, in a fashion similar to how Reddit’s individual communities work. This is not praise. Reddit bans people for expressing widely held beliefs. Subreddit mods are required to enforce the site-wide rules regardless of the subreddit's own preferences. As another commenter put it [1], the pr…
Just because over 10 million Americans believe that Tom Hanks violates, kills, and eats children - a widely held belief - does not mean that a private company can't tell those people to go suck a bug. A private company does moderation and it's the end of the world. Ron DeSantis bans books and he is just "anti-woke". The actual government.
Although I don't necessarily disagree with you in principal here, it's worth noting that the precedent that allows him to ban LGBT books is the original banning of prayer in schools. The fact that school attendance is actually compulsory takes a little of the bite off of your argument, though - social media participation is entirely voluntary.
Why is this obsession with decentralized? I don’t see the benefits of it at all. A central server is better if they have a good moderation plan built in. This whole decentralized idea is to wash their hands off moderation and not take a blame for the hellhole it will become. From a pure functional point of view, how can a decentralized network provide any performance guarantee? What am I missing?
If that's true, then the internet itself was (and continues to be) a mistake.
What we need is a single distributed protocol for both file sharing, chat and "posts" tied to a verified human identity, with the concept of trust baked in. I want to search my social graph for content rather than google. If your social graph has people shitting out spam or bad content, you could just revoke the trust of the people in the graph that enabled that content.
What if, and hear me out: we ditch the idea of a better replacement social network and just ditch the concept in general? Let’s go back to not being bombarded by ads every 3rd post, to not getting lost in massive echo chambers, to not doom scrolling for 20-40% of our waking hours, being locked into mega platforms, etc... Is the proposition of “being more connected” really worth the downsides?
young people will always want a social network that connects them to their peers before they realize the damaging effects of it. Even if warned, guaranteed they won't care at first