Humanism & liberalism.

The ideas that the human is the measure of all things, and that moral & political philosophy claiming individuals have inherent liberties & are fundamentally equal, government exists for the people, authority is legitimate only when it protects those inherent liberties—the entire point of that was to reject as illegitimate any system of authority of unequal, exclusive power & privileges such as divine right to rule & exclusive hereditary privileges associated with feudalism.

The influence of these philosophies can be found in the history from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, American & French revolutions, and trend toward constitutional republics & liberal democracies. Humanism backed challenges to the authority of the church in the Reformation by favoring plurality. During the Enlightenment, it argued that rationality could replace deism, promoted secular separation of church & state.

Humanism influenced the liberalism of the American & French revolutions ending the authority of monarchs & feudal traditions. The French revolution spread liberal democratic ideals throughout Europe while stimulating nationalist movements. Liberalism gradually eroded the authority of monarchs in constitutional monarchies like England’s until they became figureheads of liberal democracies.

My understanding is that the content is essentially self-hosted, so content removed from relays still exists on the posting user’s client

The relays are the hosts, not the clients. The only data the user carries is their unique public-cryptographic key to identify themselves & sign their messages. It’s independent of client or relay, so they can use any at will.

Curation/moderation doesn’t require relays. It can be done via the proposals/features mentioned before, which is distributed independent of relay.

most forums before Digg and Reddit did have rules

Usenet certainly didn’t, nor does the web in the grand scale. Enforcement was weak.

would remain technically on the systems you are referring to

Nope, it would have to be removed just like always. True of new systems, too.

Not providing a link on the web creates a scavenger hunt which is bad form.

It makes you an unpleasant person to be around

nah, it’s refreshing

and I hope you don’t treat people in person the way you’ve treated people here.

I hope we have better things to care about

Search result for Linux Security Modules

Linux Security Modules (LSM) is a framework allowing the Linux kernel to support, without bias, a variety of computer security models.

ie, implement security policies other than the standard model such as mandatory access controls.

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.