> On Friday, Graber turned more serious in her pushback: “Harassing the mods into banning someone has never worked. And harassing people in general has never changed their minds,” she wrote, adding later that: “Yet it’s a behavior that persists across social media anyway, with negative consequences for civil discourse and society. Human nature is a contributing factor, but systems that reward outrage only make the problem worse.”
I think the goal of pushing many of these harassment's forward, is to further have a reason to force these platforms to clamp down on its users to push the agenda of needing to control speech. The people who benefit directly are government insiders that want to wield power over the population.
Its very similar to what I suspect the RIAA did during the file sharing craze. They would post there own content to force these platforms into submission.
IMHO. Decentralization is just another way to centralize control at choke points. The only way to make these systems censor proof is to have them built on distributed networks[0].
Secondly any for profit entity that pushes a platform is going to want control over the platform and as such be diametrically opposed to freedom of expression.
Look at BitTorrent as an example. Its been working for years. yes they can poison nodes, but its clearly much more resistant to these kinds of attacks then our current iteration of social media platforms. Why do we keep buying into platforms that doing give us what we need?
Also I'd be very wary of any overly complicated system designed to make it very difficult to understand the process of connecting to peers. Complication is usually a way to obfuscate the technical process of a system to prevent people from making any meaningful changes to it.
[0]: https://medium.com/distributed-economy/what-is-the-differenc...