4 ms·

I'd like to see moderation decoupled from the forum namespace. So you'd subscribe to a forum namespace in order to see posts about a topic (say, AskScience), b

I'd like to see moderation decoupled from the forum namespace. So you'd subscribe to a forum namespace in order to see posts about a topic (say, AskScience), but you would then also subscribe to whichever moderators you want. The moderation wouldn't be inextricably tied to the namespace. Anybody can post anything in any namespace (and anybody can declare themselves a moderator of any namespace), but people will only see posts if their chosen moderators allow it. You could have all of the same moderation powers that exist at the moment, except any given moderator's actions are optional to any given user's view of the forum. We wouldn't need a situation like with r/bitcoin and r/btc where disagreements about moderation resulted in a splinter group creating a separate namespace: those who disagreed with moderator X would simply unsubscribe from X's moderation. I don't know if this would result in a better forum, but I'd be interested to see how it's different, and I don't know of anywhere it's been tried. (And in case someone out there is granting wishes... can I also have it decentralised e.g. using IPFS's pub sub?)

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
Yep. That was usenet. But in those days, we didn't have 3rd party recommended filters - but there's no reason why they wouldn't work now. Maybe it's time to remake Usenet, minus binaries. Binaries, piracy, and their data load per server are what killed Usenet. (Yes, I know it's still living on in paid-service world. But gone are the days your ISP runs a machine.)
- jstarfish 9y ago
  > Binaries, piracy, and their data load per server are what killed Usenet. Binaries and piracy were two of the biggest reasons to use Usenet. Spam is what killed it.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    I respectfully agree and disagree. Spam was and still is a nassive headache. However Bayesian filters were really starting up. But Spam was annoying at best. What caused Usenet servers to be quit was that ISP's were seeing them as a pirate haven and a lawsuit magnet. There was all the impetus to stop supporting piracy, and lose the costs incurred with that bandwidth to a Usenet server. Sure, it was a great draw to use it to pirate... but it is also why it fell. Now these days, time to move to IPFS. That place is ripe for piracy, and super simple to share.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

Yep. That was usenet. But in those days, we didn't have 3rd party recommended filters - but there's no reason why they wouldn't work now. Maybe it's time to remake Usenet, minus binaries. Binaries, piracy, and their data load per server are what killed Usenet. (Yes, I know it's still living on in paid-service world. But gone are the days your ISP runs a machine.)

jstarfish 9y ago
> Binaries, piracy, and their data load per server are what killed Usenet. Binaries and piracy were two of the biggest reasons to use Usenet. Spam is what killed it.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  I respectfully agree and disagree. Spam was and still is a nassive headache. However Bayesian filters were really starting up. But Spam was annoying at best. What caused Usenet servers to be quit was that ISP's were seeing them as a pirate haven and a lawsuit magnet. There was all the impetus to stop supporting piracy, and lose the costs incurred with that bandwidth to a Usenet server. Sure, it was a great draw to use it to pirate... but it is also why it fell. Now these days, time to move to IPFS. That place is ripe for piracy, and super simple to share.