7 ms·
There's a weird paradox... I believe in privacy/free speech/etc, however any social media targeted at those usecases tend to be a cesspool of horribleness.
by gkoberger 6y ago
There's a weird paradox... I believe in privacy/free speech/etc, however any social media targeted at those usecases tend to be a cesspool of horribleness.
- _e21c 6y agoIt’s an alternative interface to Reddit, not a new site with different moderation rules.
- FreeTrade 6y agoIt is an improvement over reddit's gradually worsening interface, however it is still based on reddit's private platform. For an open source alternative on a public platform, there is matrix or member.cash
- dicknuckle 6y agomatrix is for live chat. you want saidit which is an open source fork of reddit's open source code that stopped in 2017.
- glenstein 6y agoWell these days Lemmy is the hot new reddit alternative, based on activitypub. I would think that's what people wanting a reddit alternative should look at.
- jhabdas 6y agoLemmy looks good. Here's a link to the software. https://lemmy.ml/docs/about.html https://lemmy.ml/docs/about.html
- UncleSlacky 6y agoThere's also Raddle: https://raddle.me https://raddle.me
- takeda 6y agoA great alternative on reddit, or rather reddit became an alternative to it, is Usenet. It really sucks that NNTP is disappearing and no longer being provided by ISPs.
- yborg 6y agoDidn't scale well. Largely unmoderated so filled with illegal content. Nobody wants to deal with it without getting paid for it somehow.
- takeda 6y agoI never was admin of a NNTP server, but I don't think it's true about scaling or moderation. From what I know when you're admin, you decide which groups you allow on your server. The controversial stuff is really on groups starting with "alt." which are as I understand created ad-hoc. "alt.binaries" for example is where it's mostly pirated stuff is at. I saw many servers that had restricted list of groups, and "alt.binaries" was often restricted, partially because it might be pirated, partially to reduce disk footprint. As for moderation. Once you have server you can moderate and send messages that will remove offending content from any group. Because it is decentralized it is really up to admins of other NNTP servers to decide whether they will respect your moderation messages or not.
- dorfsmay 6y agoold.reddit.com isn't really degrading.
- dghughes 6y agoA news aggregator aggregator.
- tonydiv 6y agoJob Offer: Become a Nomadic Tesla Cybertruck-Owning Techno-Hippie https://wholesalememes.substack.com/p/job-offer-become-a-nomadic-tesla https://wholesalememes.substack.com/p/job-offer-become-a-nom...
- gjs278 6y agoI have a tesla but I have no idea what they want me to do here
- IgorPartola 6y agoWhat did I just read and is this real? Also, why grow weed in the bed of a Cybertruck specifically?
- tonydiv 6y agoy not? ;) http://firstruleof.xn--club-4p14c.hns.to/ http://firstruleof.xn--club-4p14c.hns.to/ 1. u read 2. new g_oba_ _anguage 4 3. ETH h4x0r 4. anti deiep; f8k hehewh: https://mashable.com/video/scary-deepfake-tool-can-alter-dialogue/ https://mashable.com/video/scary-deepfake-tool-can-alter-dia... psi-ents hehe quntinue: Y|N => DM
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoeg: voat vs reddit when reddit started banning objectionable subs edit: it is even more true than I thought. Look at the homepage of https://voat.co https://voat.co at your own risk.
- blhack 6y agoHoly crap.
- meowster 6y ago[deleted]
- hilbertseries 6y agoThe Republican Secretary of State and his officials says there’s nothing unusual about the video in question. So, is the presumption now a vast conspiracy involving democrats and republicans to turn the election for Biden?
- meowster 6y agoI don't know, this is the first I'm hearing of it. After reading your comment and looking that up, apparently others are saying all of that is normal. (Sorry, I didn't mean to make this a political thread.)
- Kye 6y agoThey can post it somewhere with standards of evidence if they want to be taken seriously. Why waste time looking into it on the off chance it has more veracity than everything around it?
- gruez 6y agoThe logic around these election fraud posts usually goes something like this: 1. something "suspicious" is presented 2. only conclusion must be election fraud, no explanations to the contrary is explored or accepted 3. go to step 1, preferably before the "MSM" debunks the first instance. You can try this yourself: try to find any election fraud claim from 2+ weeks ago that turned out to be "legit".
- liquidise 6y agoThere's nothing paradoxical about this. In fact, people arguing for platforms to more heavily moderate content are implicitly requesting what you describe. Actively silencing voices doesn't stop those people from speaking or change their minds, but it does push them to find new places to converse with others who share their ideas. As such, it should come as no surprise that people with fringe or hateful views make up many of the early adopters on explicitly lightly moderated platforms.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- prox 6y agoAs someone who has moderated various irc channels, mostly about debating / philosophical issues for years, there is a lot of confusion about the dialectic between free speech and moderation. That is to say, I like to compare a room/channel/sub a bit like a cafe where you never know who is going to walk in. It might be nice folks looking for a pleasant discussion, but it could be drunken brawlers high on their drug of choice, or anything in between and in every kind of mental state you can imagine. Usually it is some mix in a wide spectrum, and depending on the appeal, the crowd culture varies. Philosophical channels tend to be more naturally selective for civil debaters, but more political ones can be a mixed bag. And just as you don’t want your bar to end in a riot and with broken tables and a bad rep, you absolutely need moderation. The paradox is solved if you keep the possibility of civil discourse, of speech and to be heard, as high as a priority as a mod as you can. Stop doing it, and it starts leaning towards one way or the other, inclusionary for one group, exclusionary towards others. When I modded I often had to take away the misconception that you had a right to be there. You don’t. You have the privilege to debate in the channel, not a right. And as a guest of the establishment you need be mindful of others, and abide by the rules who are not there to curtail your freedom of speech, but to provide well thought out debates.
- forest_dweller 6y agoI don't doubt that has been your experience. However there are several things that some would take issue with. The first being your framing. The discussion is frequently framed in the following manner: Complaints about having their content remove or discussion groups removed is some sort of nazi-larping shitposter or other undesirable looking to cause trouble. I am sure there are quite a few that may fit into that, but you cannot lump all complainants into that category because it just isn't true. The second is that is fundamentally doesn't address the actual complaint itself. When people are complaining about removal of content on social media, they aren't actually complaining about the rules per se. They are complaining about how they feel the rules are enforced. Frequently the compliants are (but not limited to): * That enforcement of the rules is applied arbitrarily and overwhelmingly favours one particular group based on the personal politics of the moderators. Whether that is true or not is another matter, they perceive it to be so and this isn't frequently addressed. * Context is frequently ignored within a discussion and because it has certain verboten terms it is removed. This is true because this has happened when content in the UK have been removed because people have used local colloquisms that are considered offensive outside of those communities but not within them. e.g. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/faggots-peas-advert-banned-google-fanny-s-cafe-newport-wales-a9099061.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/faggots-peas... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7911927/Meat-lover-banned-Facebook-hate-speech-praising-butchers-faggots.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7911927/Meat-lover-... * Enforcement is more lenient if someone is well-known (a presumably makes signifcant income for the site and themselves).
- ankit219 6y agoScott Alexander in one of the essays said it right. He did look at Voat as an example when he did. His quote (from point III) > if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong [1]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...
- Inhibit 6y agoNot a knock on you but this reminds me why I hate speaking (writing) example via analogy. There's so much horrible surrounding using "witch" as the noun, what with the traditional "hey, that's a nice plot of land you've got there" that proceeded the accusation. That's your historical witch-hunt. A convenient way of killing your neighbor. Heck, maybe it's an appropriate analogy.
- Viliam1234 6y agoI scrolled through the comments to see how many times this link will be posted, because this is the best answer to why censorship sucks, but somehow lack of censorship usually doesn't improve things. However, sometimes I think that the concept of "web forum" is fundamentally broken, and need to be rethought properly, instead of making the same mistakes over and over again, because the whole thing is just incompatible with our instincts and needs. Probably the greatest design mistake is having a front page that is shown by default to people who are not logged in. Because then it matters a lot what gets on this page and what does not. (Somewhere else in this thread people pointing at the front page of Voat. Somewhere else, people complaining about posts being removed from the front page of Reddit despite getting many votes by readers.) If you have one front page, there is going to be a war about what gets there. And the winner will most likely be a censor or a spammer; either someone with superior rights, or someone who dedicates most effort. Compare with e.g. e-mail. You do not have one global front page of e-mail, so that people could become hysteric for there either being too much of X or not enough X. You have literal Nazis sending e-mails to other literal Nazis, and yet e-mail itself does not get the image of a "Nazi supporting technology". Probably also because other people's e-mails cannot be easily found and linked on Twitter. Which leads me to another design mistake: making things public by default, as opposed to private by default. Public things can be linked, share, and wars started about them. What about having a limited exposure for everything instead? So that an anonymous user cannot see anything. Just like with e-mail. Just like with real life. Why do people keep making these mistakes repeatedly? I believe it is because they optimize for profit through advertising, not for optimal debating experience. And making people yell at each other for 24 hours a day is the approach that maximizes ads shown. But also users... they don't really want to be exposed to the worst parts of internet, and they don't really like the idea of being censored... but they like the possibility of being potentially read by tons of people... not realizing it means either online wars or censorship. It is hard to design a system that will show your content to uncensored masses, without something bad happening as a result. (But it isn't necessarily impossible. In real life, we have books that can reach millions, and yet the readers are not instantly interconnected with each other, or with the author.) So I think the proper design should mimic these things from real life: talking to each other, debating in small groups, publishing books. No sharing. If I tell you something, you can quote me by copying my words (just like you can quote me in real life), but there is nothing in the software that will confirm that I truly said that. If I publish a book, you can't automatically find out who else is reading it; you can only ask the people you know, and they may deny it; even I cannot find out who read my book, unless people tell me. Probably a few more rules. In some sense, many of these are "anti-features" that prevent you from doing something that would start an avalanche. Then you can have a platform with seven zillion witches, but as long as you do not add them as your friends, you will not be impacted by their existence. The only way to find out about their activity is to join them. The system is not optimizing for having you join as many debates as possible. It is the other way round: you need some of your friends to introduce you to the existence of witches, then you may ask to join them, then maybe they will accept you. Only then will the witchcraft content start appearing on your screen.
- Bayart 6y agoWell, the majority of those adopting these types of platform are people so insufferable they've been pushed out everywhere else rather than Ye Olde Neckbeard.