4 ms·

> How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private. There's a diff

> How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private. There's a difference between running a private, not for profit, Mastadon node where anyone who signs up presumably knows what the forum is about versus Twitter who pitched their company to investors as merely a platform for people to tweet. Nobody is upset with Twitter moderating content that violates existing Federal Law, but they were never meant to be a moderating like a Mastadon node on the private side or even like a sub reddit on the public side. Again, looking at Reddit, most don't have an issue with moderated content on the sub reddit, the issue is when Reddit removes entire sub reddits because THEY don't agree with the content. BTW, I think Justice Thomas' recent remarks have made Twitter and Facebook take note because he hinted that the misrepresentation to investors was the attack vector, not the 1st Amendment.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private. In this context "private" just means privately operated. A Mastadon node is still publicly available. But I can kind of see the distinction you're getting at, and it's especially clear with Reddit. If you have a sub which is moderated by the users, there is no longer any call for the corporation to do any moderation whatsoever, because it's already being handled in a decentralized fashion (each sub has its own independent moderators). You don't need the corporation itself to do any moderation at all, and so anything they do there is unnecessary and unwelcome. The question is how to draw that line. You essentially want decentralized moderation even when there is centralized hosting. How does that look when you apply it to e.g. Facebook?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private. In this context "private" just means privately operated. A Mastadon node is still publicly available. But I can kind of see the distinction you're getting at, and it's especially clear with Reddit. If you have a sub which is moderated by the users, there is no longer any call for the corporation to do any moderation whatsoever, because it's already being handled in a decentralized fashion (each sub has its own independent moderators). You don't need the corporation itself to do any moderation at all, and so anything they do there is unnecessary and unwelcome. The question is how to draw that line. You essentially want decentralized moderation even when there is centralized hosting. How does that look when you apply it to e.g. Facebook?