3 ms·

If we are going down a path of moderating based on 'truth' we are editorializing. This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, and a way to see

by rocqua 6y ago

If we are going down a path of moderating based on 'truth' we are editorializing. This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, and a way to see what others think is truth. I think a fediverse is a great way to achieve this. Much better than Twitter containing most of the mainstream and anything else being relegated to 'free speech' places that get overrun by unacceptable content.

djsumdog 6y ago
> This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, No, no no. I'm not too stupid to think for myself. I don't want anyone 'thinking' for anyone else. It is the mark of a truth authoritarian when you embrace other people thinking for you. The biggest problem with social media is that they ARE editorializing every single person's post by choosing where it appears in the list or by placing a little blue disputed badge on it or locking out an account if someone has conflicting opinions. I don't want you, or anyone else, picking what the truth is. What you are describe is literally enforcing Thoughtcrime.
- rocqua 6y ago
  What I am describing is how news-papers used to work. Every news paper has a different perspective, and we had a choice in which editors we listened to. With social media we do not. I want choice back, and I want to keep that choice from being a walled garden. I am not looking for someone to tell me the Truth with a capital T. I am looking for many people to tell me their truth, with a small 't'. And if someone's truth is obviously false to me, and they happen to moderate a big social media platform, then I want a way out. Note, I have never had a problem with online moderators. I am not asking to get around bans I already have. In fact I think we agree on a basic principle. We cannot trust a single entity to determine the truth. Issue is, with current forms of moderation, a few parties (Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Credit-cards) can easily decide to shut someone down. I think that power should be way more diffuse.

by rocqua 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago

> This is good, but we need a way to pick who does this for us, No, no no. I'm not too stupid to think for myself. I don't want anyone 'thinking' for anyone else. It is the mark of a truth authoritarian when you embrace other people thinking for you. The biggest problem with social media is that they ARE editorializing every single person's post by choosing where it appears in the list or by placing a little blue disputed badge on it or locking out an account if someone has conflicting opinions. I don't want you, or anyone else, picking what the truth is. What you are describe is literally enforcing Thoughtcrime.

rocqua 6y ago
What I am describing is how news-papers used to work. Every news paper has a different perspective, and we had a choice in which editors we listened to. With social media we do not. I want choice back, and I want to keep that choice from being a walled garden. I am not looking for someone to tell me the Truth with a capital T. I am looking for many people to tell me their truth, with a small 't'. And if someone's truth is obviously false to me, and they happen to moderate a big social media platform, then I want a way out. Note, I have never had a problem with online moderators. I am not asking to get around bans I already have. In fact I think we agree on a basic principle. We cannot trust a single entity to determine the truth. Issue is, with current forms of moderation, a few parties (Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Credit-cards) can easily decide to shut someone down. I think that power should be way more diffuse.