4 ms·

Hmm, ok. "every social network catering to the far right", "shtick". I presume you mean gab.com, etc. -- the "far right" boogie man, no? "they soon realize i

Hmm, ok. "every social network catering to the far right", "shtick". I presume you mean gab.com, etc. -- the "far right" boogie man, no? "they soon realize it doesn't work". I presume you refer to "block/take down..illegal..leave the rest", no? And then an article about badly implemented moderation, boiling down to "things you don't like" and banning accounts. So, am I incorrect to infer you don't want sites (somehow) banning just illegal stuff, and badly implemented moderation -- you want well-implemented moderation that "just works"? Which I claim is impossible (from first principles, based on scale), but you still ... just want it! If that's not a correct interpretation, then clarify, please.

latexr 4y ago
> So, am I incorrect to infer you don't want sites (somehow) banning just illegal stuff, and badly implemented moderation -- you want well-implemented moderation that "just works"? You’re not only incorrect, you’re astronomically wrong. I pointed out one approach that we know doesn’t work, specifically to answer someone who made that suggestion. I haven’t made any comment or judgement on other solutions. > but you still ... just want it! No, no I do not. You’re not just “inferring”, you’re down right constructing a straw man from things I never claimed. That’s the opposite of constructive discussion. > "shtick" A schtick is a defining characteristic. Twitter’s character limit is a shtick. Doesn’t mean it’s good or bad. > the "far right" boogie man, no? You keep using that expression. More caricatures. The social networks I had in mind cater to the far right and don’t hide it, that’s their growth plan. If you felt attacked, that’s on you.