4 ms·
It's not about making people pedophiles, it's about giving existing pedophiles material. Or about exposing people with right-leaning views to more and more extr
by malermeister 5y ago
It's not about making people pedophiles, it's about giving existing pedophiles material. Or about exposing people with right-leaning views to more and more extreme content, or whatever the dangerous material in question is.
What you are proposing is just censorship with extra steps, it seems to me, where the operators are the censors. What's the point, other than making everything more complicated and difficult to work with?
- rglover 5y ago> Where the operators are the censors. In essence. Except it's by consensus, not by decree. That's my personal issue with censorship. One or a few people deciding "this is bad," which starts out with good intentions eventually gets abused and used to subjugate groups of people. In this design, it's voluntary. You can be on the network, but that doesn't mean your stuff will be propagated.
- malermeister 5y agoIn a democratic society it is already by consensus. The consensus is established during elections.
- rglover 5y ago??? Who is elected has literally nothing to do with what happens on a decentralized or centralized network (short of indirect influence).
- malermeister 5y agoConsensus over who censors what is established at election time, by people voting for the party representing their views. No need for overengineered schemes.