3 ms·

Why is your framing and solution to exclude people? In the "early internet," the SNR nostalgia you have was primarily a result of better moderation, not exclusi

Why is your framing and solution to exclude people? In the "early internet," the SNR nostalgia you have was primarily a result of better moderation, not exclusion of the "masses." That said, the decline of moderation can occur with the addition of new users without a proportionate increase of moderators and such. Still, they are not logically equivalent, it is principally the lack of moderation which is the actual issue. Systems if they want to maintain norms need to adapt to changing times. Ironically people's starting point for "when things became bad" is almost always after they join, so even "seasoned users" disagree on the start of the decline in general. That's the problem with exclusionary rhetoric in almost all walks of life, because the easiest response to any sort of "we're full" rhetoric is and should be "you leave first" and such a response has no real counter.

thereddaikon 4y ago
My framing isn't to actively exclude people like some stuck up gatekeeper. Its to stop lowering the bar of entry to anyone who wants to shoot off their dumb opinions online has to expend at least a little effort and brainpower to get there. Lowering the bar to allow even the most willfully tech illiterate to effortlessly post on places like twitter guarantee tragedy of the commons. Compare the R/C plane hobby before and after Drones hit the market. Before quadcopter drones, R/C aircraft were difficult to fly and required an investment of time and discipline to master the skill. This meant the community was fairly small and dedicated. And it was able to effectively self govern for decades with basically no government intervention required. Then quadcopters hit the market and it took not even 10 years before the FAA had to intervene because idiots who had no skill or respect for the technology were flying around airports, public gatherings and other restricted areas. Even though things practically fly themselves they were crashing into people and their property. There were serious injuries because they were flown by morons. So the FAA had to step in and become the gatekeeper. Is crashing a drone into a person's car or a child the same as idiots on social media? No, but irresponsible use of social media has ruined plenty of people's lives. The connect isn't as obvious but the damage is still there. We haven't started requiring social media licenses because speech is a protected right of course. And we shouldn't change that. But that means there should be some social responsibility.

thereddaikon 4y ago

My framing isn't to actively exclude people like some stuck up gatekeeper. Its to stop lowering the bar of entry to anyone who wants to shoot off their dumb opinions online has to expend at least a little effort and brainpower to get there. Lowering the bar to allow even the most willfully tech illiterate to effortlessly post on places like twitter guarantee tragedy of the commons. Compare the R/C plane hobby before and after Drones hit the market. Before quadcopter drones, R/C aircraft were difficult to fly and required an investment of time and discipline to master the skill. This meant the community was fairly small and dedicated. And it was able to effectively self govern for decades with basically no government intervention required. Then quadcopters hit the market and it took not even 10 years before the FAA had to intervene because idiots who had no skill or respect for the technology were flying around airports, public gatherings and other restricted areas. Even though things practically fly themselves they were crashing into people and their property. There were serious injuries because they were flown by morons. So the FAA had to step in and become the gatekeeper. Is crashing a drone into a person's car or a child the same as idiots on social media? No, but irresponsible use of social media has ruined plenty of people's lives. The connect isn't as obvious but the damage is still there. We haven't started requiring social media licenses because speech is a protected right of course. And we shouldn't change that. But that means there should be some social responsibility.