3 ms·
Imho it cannot work because we dont globally agree whats okay to do and say. I think mass media has some fundamental flaws that we havent accepted yet. Edit:
by goodlinks 5y ago
Imho it cannot work because we dont globally agree whats okay to do and say.
I think mass media has some fundamental flaws that we havent accepted yet.
Edit: take out advertising in intellectual property and you would get rid of a bunch of bad actors and cobra effects.
- dataflow 5y agoI think your points are valid. But I'm not sure if I see them as moderation issues. As I see it, there's the question of what should be allowed, and there's the question of how to enforce it adequately. As I see it, the former is a policy issue (and likely tougher), whereas the latter is a moderation issue.
- goodlinks 5y agoI 100% agree that moderation could be lightyears better. However i see this as being a bit like the BBC problem: beleiving there is such a thing as being objective, there just isnt. You can have a group of likeminded people who mostly agree and need a bit of moderation for when someones external bad day leaks into their interactions on the plaform. However if there is an underlying fundamental difference of opinion or goals then the moderators become just another weapon. We need leaders not moderators. Moderators in difference of opinion just end up punishing the weak one way or another. Leaders show by example what we can aspire to, which in turn guides moderators in how to apply the rules. If you have global platforms who are the leaders? What direction should they lead that works for china and the US?
- goodlinks 5y agoEdit: to be clear if you cannot afford enough moderators to stop child abuse or murder videos being posted then shut your platform down as its not viable. I am more tlaking about how moderation gets weaponised etc.