We’re receiving about 3,000 reports/hour

[flagged]

No you get flagged and banned for breaking the rules. The fact you can't comprehend this is on you.

Cool, if you can require them for every possible interaction on a platform but even that violates privacy if you have one universal value that ties it all together (the identifier of the specific TPM).

It's just the phone number/email issue but tied to hardware. If you think these things won't leak and allow bad actors to tie your accounts across services then I have some lovely real estate in Florida you may be interested in.

It also appears that resetting a fTPM works around this since it fully resets the TPM. Even if it didn't then people buying used CPUs could find that they're banned from games that they've never even played or installed on their system before

I understand the moderators working for the big social networks have a terrible job and often see the worst the internet has to offer.

Who is going to do that job as a volunteer? Or is that expected to be solved by technology? Hard to imagine them achieving what Google, Facebook etc could not reliably.

I think the central nature of moderation needs fixed, rather than moderation itself. Real world moderation doesn't work by having a central censor, it involves like-minded people identifying into a group and having their access to conversation enabled by that identification. When the conversation no longer suits the group, the person is no longer welcome. I think a technical model of this could be made to work.

Looked semi-seriously at doing a Twitter clone around the time Bluesky was first announced, and to solve this I'd considered something like GitHub achievement badges (e.g. organization membership), except instead of a static number, these could be created by anyone, and trust relationships could exist between them. For example, a programming language community might have existing organs who might wish to maintain a membership badge - the community's existing CoC would necessarily confer application of this badge to a user, thus extending the existing expectation for conduct out from the community to that platform.

Since within the tech community these expectations are relatively aligned, trust relationships between different badges would be quite straightforward to imagine (e.g. Python and Rust community standards are very similar). Outside tech, similar things might be seen in certain areas of politics, religion or local cultural areas. Issues and dramatics regarding cross-community alignment would naturally be confined only to the neighbouring badges of a potential trust relationship, not the platform as a whole.

I like the idea of badge membership and badge trust being the means by which visibility on the platform could be achieved. There need not be any big centralized standards for participation, each user effectively would be allowed to pick their own poison and starting point for building out their own visibility into the universe of content. Where issues occur (abusive user carrying a highly visible badge, or maintainer of such a badge turning sour or suddenly giving up on its reputation or similar), a centralized function could still exist to step in and potentially take over at least in the interim, but the need for this (at least in theory) should be greatly diminished.

A web of trust over a potentially large number of user-governed groupings has some fun technical problems to solve, especially around making it efficient enough for interactive use. And from a usability perspective, application onboarding for a brand new account

Running on little sleep but thought it was worth trying to sketch this idea out on a relevant thread.