3 ms·

I think you summed it up quite well. At this moment, there does not seem to be a space between the corporate you-are-the-product mainstream and the weirdos with

by wvh 5y ago

I think you summed it up quite well. At this moment, there does not seem to be a space between the corporate you-are-the-product mainstream and the weirdos with an agenda crowd at the edges for a person to just be, speak and think in a relatively free and neutral sense without ending up in some ulterior trap.

dools 5y ago
Aren't you having a discussion on just such a platform? Also what can't you say on, say, Twitter that you want to say?
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  https://m.slashdot.org/story/396689 https://m.slashdot.org/story/396689
krapp 5y ago
There is no such space because there can be no such space. If you want a community without bad actors, bigots, cranks, etc, then it has to have rules and moderation, which means censorship. If you want free speech, you're going to get the bigots, cranks and bad actors. "Speak(ing) and think(ing) in a relatively free and neutral sense without ending up in some ulterior trap" requires curation and tone policing, which is censorship. Otherwise, the bigots and the cranks are also free to speak and think in the same way as everyone else, ruin the community and drive everyone else away. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you have to pick one.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  The problem is the censors are also prone to being bad actors, flexing their agenda by bending and stretching rules far beyond their intention and turning them into another tool of our tribalism battles. It's used to squash dissent and often not enacted in good faith. People are called bigots for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry. And it's done intentionally to weild power over wrong-thinkers. The bad actors are at all levels and of all persuasions
  - elsjaako 5y ago
    The advantage of Federation is that this is largely solved by the nature of federation. You just join a server with not to much drama and a culture you agree with. There are a number of problems with the model (including finding such a server). But censors flexing their agenda isn't a real problem in my experience.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Can't we adjust for 3-sigma conversations? :)
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "If you want a community without bad actors, bigots, cranks, etc, then it has to have rules and moderation, which means censorship." There are alternatives to rules, moderation and censorship that are still effective at filtering out undesirables. As far back as more than 25 years ago, usenet news readers had kill files, scoring and filtering at the client level. For various reasons, the mainstream social media platforms chose not to give their users these tools, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
  - krapp 5y ago
    USENET more or less burned down in flames because killfiling the lunatics didn't actually stop them from taking over the asylum. Both Facebook and Twitter (especially Twitter) give users copious abilities to block users and filter content... and guess what? It's still considered censorship, and it doesn't work at scale.

by wvh 5y ago

dools 5y ago

Aren't you having a discussion on just such a platform? Also what can't you say on, say, Twitter that you want to say?

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
https://m.slashdot.org/story/396689 https://m.slashdot.org/story/396689

krapp 5y ago

There is no such space because there can be no such space. If you want a community without bad actors, bigots, cranks, etc, then it has to have rules and moderation, which means censorship. If you want free speech, you're going to get the bigots, cranks and bad actors. "Speak(ing) and think(ing) in a relatively free and neutral sense without ending up in some ulterior trap" requires curation and tone policing, which is censorship. Otherwise, the bigots and the cranks are also free to speak and think in the same way as everyone else, ruin the community and drive everyone else away. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you have to pick one.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
The problem is the censors are also prone to being bad actors, flexing their agenda by bending and stretching rules far beyond their intention and turning them into another tool of our tribalism battles. It's used to squash dissent and often not enacted in good faith. People are called bigots for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry. And it's done intentionally to weild power over wrong-thinkers. The bad actors are at all levels and of all persuasions
- elsjaako 5y ago
  The advantage of Federation is that this is largely solved by the nature of federation. You just join a server with not to much drama and a culture you agree with. There are a number of problems with the model (including finding such a server). But censors flexing their agenda isn't a real problem in my experience.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Can't we adjust for 3-sigma conversations? :)
pmoriarty 5y ago
"If you want a community without bad actors, bigots, cranks, etc, then it has to have rules and moderation, which means censorship." There are alternatives to rules, moderation and censorship that are still effective at filtering out undesirables. As far back as more than 25 years ago, usenet news readers had kill files, scoring and filtering at the client level. For various reasons, the mainstream social media platforms chose not to give their users these tools, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
- krapp 5y ago
  USENET more or less burned down in flames because killfiling the lunatics didn't actually stop them from taking over the asylum. Both Facebook and Twitter (especially Twitter) give users copious abilities to block users and filter content... and guess what? It's still considered censorship, and it doesn't work at scale.