3 ms·

Centralized moderation at scale is impossible to do for the same reason that centralized planning of economy is impossible to do: which is that goals, knowledge

by chr1 6y ago

Centralized moderation at scale is impossible to do for the same reason that centralized planning of economy is impossible to do: which is that goals, knowledge and resources are not known to the centralized authority that is supposed to handle the task. But it is possible to give everyone tools to modereate for themeselves https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderation-system-for-the-decentralized-web/ https://adecentralizedworld.com/2020/06/a-trust-and-moderati...

ameliaquining 6y ago
Masnick responds to this in the original post: > There is the argument (that I regularly advocate) that pushing out the moderation to the ends of the network (i.e., giving more controls to the end users) is better, but that also has some complications in that it puts the burden on end users, and they have neither the time nor inclination to continually tweak their own settings.
xg15 6y ago
> The first obvious issue is the creation of echo chambers or online cults, where instead of choosing truth and seeking the best information, people trust those who confirm their existing beliefs. This can be somewhat mitigated with the ability to set a trust filter level to a low level, even in the negatives, to see posts and opinions one may not usually be exposed to. This again is up to the end user if they wish to expose themselves to differing opinions or not. It is up to individuals to determine what’s best for them. Of course, one would hope they make good choices, but it is not society’s job to save people from themselves. It’s far better to have this freedom and the power to use or misuse it, than to allow companies to build the echo chamber behind closed doors. That's a nice dogma - which breaks down as soon as one of the cults/echo chambers starts harrassing or doxxing or otherwise hurting someone they declared an enemy. This whole concept is based on an assumption that if someone bothers you online, this is always a personal issue that can be resolved by you pretending they didn't exist. By now we have enough experience with online communities to know that things don't work that way.

by chr1 6y ago

ameliaquining 6y ago

Masnick responds to this in the original post: > There is the argument (that I regularly advocate) that pushing out the moderation to the ends of the network (i.e., giving more controls to the end users) is better, but that also has some complications in that it puts the burden on end users, and they have neither the time nor inclination to continually tweak their own settings.

xg15 6y ago

> The first obvious issue is the creation of echo chambers or online cults, where instead of choosing truth and seeking the best information, people trust those who confirm their existing beliefs. This can be somewhat mitigated with the ability to set a trust filter level to a low level, even in the negatives, to see posts and opinions one may not usually be exposed to. This again is up to the end user if they wish to expose themselves to differing opinions or not. It is up to individuals to determine what’s best for them. Of course, one would hope they make good choices, but it is not society’s job to save people from themselves. It’s far better to have this freedom and the power to use or misuse it, than to allow companies to build the echo chamber behind closed doors. That's a nice dogma - which breaks down as soon as one of the cults/echo chambers starts harrassing or doxxing or otherwise hurting someone they declared an enemy. This whole concept is based on an assumption that if someone bothers you online, this is always a personal issue that can be resolved by you pretending they didn't exist. By now we have enough experience with online communities to know that things don't work that way.