It’s pretty normal to call the extra bullshit on top of legal compliance that isn’t strictly necessary moderation. They didn’t call the removal of illegal content before moderation, they just called it following the goddamn law. To imagine that illegality was seriously suggested is special.
That’s very nice until people start posting csam
You guys always confuse legal compliance with legally unnecessary moderation. OP didn’t make this mistake. Did you know laws existed before moderated social media blew up & the internet had to follow them? Even 4chan.
We don’t need legally unnecessary moderation. Alternatives are viable.
And I pointed out the same risk of “bias”, which users could easily draw attention to, applies to any moderator. Moreover, you brought up their speculative identity
the reach of what she did/helped with
and no pattern of moderator abuses or “bias” had been observed from that user.
A flimsy answer you can’t justify isn’t credible. Back to the quote
is there any credible reason
No, just that the observation that benevolence exists applies as much to worse economic systems.
Your thought may not apply distinctly to capitalism. Is it possible economic influence from any type of economy would also corrupt susceptible governments? Have you considered perhaps the problem lies more in the structural types of governments susceptible to influence by special interests that don’t serve the majority?
Benevolent, philanthropic businesses & business magnates are possible as are benevolent kings & dictators.
To not “throw everything away”, that doesn’t suggest how to keep the integrity of government to regulate capitalism or any successful economy.
I’ve never heard of a good HR department. Are you suggesting a better government less susceptible to government failure? Or a review of serious, scholarly work in political economy or public choice pertaining to these questions? That would be a refreshing change.
Most of the time, criticisms on here boil down to “capitalism is the worst system except for all the others we’ve tried”. No insights, just opinions regurgitating muddled takes on dated philosophy.
Needs text alternative or link to source.
Mostly for all the AI haters who can’t stop bringing up their hatred of AI. Insufferable.
None: content curation via opt-in filters is better.
Moderation lacks control, is inflexible, & is contrary to the free flow of information the internet stands for. We shouldn’t admire some self-appointed, paternalistic authority arbitrarily deciding the information we’re entitled to get.
Yep, better to go back to mercantile & pre-mercantile economic systems of feudalism & before. Shit was way better then.
This senseless war with the bots needs to end. Make peace with the bots, learn their ways, breed with their women, assimilate into their culture, become & post content exactly like them. If you do this, you will achieve bot nirvana.
The rewards of content moderation people begged for.
Explain how that works: anyone can post an article & moderators enforce rules. Wouldn’t moderation actions deviating from the rules be easy to draw attention to? Moreover, we don’t truly know online identities, and moderators could be anyone. This looks like an invalid argument based on identity rather than a valid one based on a demonstrated pattern of moderation conduct.
The only bias I’m seeing here is speculative comments jumping to conclusions.
It’s funny you link to that ycombinator comment when the one right after links to an article that again debunks the claim as unfounded & inconsistent. So, cool conspiracy theory & cherry picking.
What’s the conflict & what bearing on children do moderation capabilities of a subreddit on news articles have? Your argument seems exceptionally flimsy.
While them pearls won’t clutch themselves, is there any credible reason a convicted sex trafficker of minors can’t moderate a subreddit?
Not accessible: needs link to source for great justice. Lack of accessibility is right wing.
Not sure what that means: the function & signal are both named kill & the name signal is already taken.
However, that’s a fairer position.
So the child porn still remains present, effectively.
Compulsory legal compliance still exists: it’s the free, open internet. Did you know laws existed before, too?
Ada
Don’t know about that. I think the brief descriptions on websites like nostr.com did a good enough job: there’s not much to get.
It’s a protocol, not a platform. There’s no global moderation/censorship just like there isn’t on the whole internet. Relay operators have full discretion over the content available on their relays: if they want to do more than the bare minimum, they can. Clients are free to subscribe to other relays or multiple. It’s technically free association rather than anti-moderation.
A user can choose to see only the content of followed users: that should eliminate most unwanted content. Apart from that, there’s no perfect moderation solution even on centralized platforms, so there isn’t here.
Client-side filtering remains the best approach for those who care. It doesn’t have to be manual as I mentioned before.
I recall earlier days of the internet when no one gave a fuck about this, and internet rage was just entertaining, easily ignored nonsense. Then it became eternal summer, and tightass n00bs started acting like moderating the entire internet & foisting their dumbass expectations on everyone made perfect sense without ever having to learn the zen of not giving a fuck. That was the start of when it all turned to shit.
I’m lost. If a mod removes child porn on NOSTR, it removes it for everyone, right?
No moderators. A relay operator can remove it from their relay. There’s any number of relays. It’s roughly like usenet with respect to server-side content removal.
Strange to ask me when authoritative information is public online. Seems you don’t know much about nostr.
Search result for Linux Security Modules
ie, implement security policies other than the standard model such as mandatory access controls.