Remember, the real MVPs are the websites that didn't need to update their privacy policy for GDPR

Attached: thisisbait.png (625x626, 66K)

we have that already. its called irc.

IRC is alright, but channels aren't nearly as active anymore, and most of them are just linking to mainstream sites like youtube. In the end we're always victim to the large content providers because they wipe out the competition. We need a large subnet that they cant easily navigate or aggregate information from. Human interaction only.

The court system seems interesting. Could be abused pretty easily for lulz just randomly banning people out, but policing such a system would only create animosity. If a ban is for say, a day on first strike, then a few, then caps at a week or something. Faggots who get banned repeatedly would no doubt get bored and piss off early. Whereas others might smarten up and not make themselves targets in the first place.

But then if youre emulating the freedom of anonymous shitposting, it wouldnt be good to enforce nothing but perfectly polite discussion lest everyone be afraid of getting canned.

Maybe the answer is shorter term bans where outsiders can view content, or some content. And the large population of active posters would enforce the hammer to drop on people who contribute nothing but shitposts.

Attached: tumblr_p62w3a2ouo1rqcfojo1_1280.png (1280x720, 224K)

They are the real bros. Those who updated to comply are alright, as they at least plan on staying in business. Those who don't comply are pretty much guaranteed scams.

i dont know why linking to main stream sites is a bad thing, you're just using them as free hosting services. as for aggregating information, are you against search engines in general? there are a few ways to make sure your site isn't seen by the spiders.

perhaps force users to burn something. like PoW in bitcoin.

they must agree to use their bandwidth to host a fraction of the traffic or something

Use more than a single jugde, depending on the size of the network, maybe 100s at once. If you feel like someone repeatly voting bullshit in these courts, report him.
Of course the system bears the same fragility as reddit as you hope that the first gaining power are the "correct" ones, but that is basically the key deal to any kind of network you're imagining.

Btw a counterpoint to everything I posted so far would be malicious content. As I'm opposed to mods having a god status here, how do you deal with people posting cp for example? You gotta report him, but this will take quite frankly more time than a mod hopping by. And once this makes it to the media, your network is done for.

Good luck.

Attached: 1526344928008.jpg (680x1020, 168K)

Of course im not against search engines. My ideal world involves internet traffic spread between thousands of sites again like it used to be. Given the money behind the current big 35 or so that run the world, I'm wracking my brain trying to think of solutions since they steal and reuse all original content, just the same as they do here.

So websites that don't operate in the EU?

I don't really believe in making them spend money just to discuss something. We aren't SA.

This might be a good idea. That's what that other network I forget the name of does. Maybe sharing bandwidth and a small portion of hard drive space if it could be sandboxed to keep everybody safe.

My thought was having a scaling vote that increases with the amount of users. And I definitely would never want a reddit situation. I think having visibility of the portion of dislike of certain threads without flat out banning them would help. If somebody makes a shitpost and 35% of people are clearly enjoying it, users could argue amongst themselves instead of the poster. I think one of the biggest problems here, is that the moderators seem to have maximum control, but no rules other than how they feel. If you give that power to users instead you can at least let them shape what they want to see. Theres certainly plenty of shit memes and wasted threads I'd like to see purged regularly.

Preventing stuff like cp is tricky, since that involves site moderation overstepping the system. But without doing that, a site can't survive. It sucks that there is a single type of content that can destroy a site so easily. I would imagine with a decent population most people would flag it to moderation which could hide the images at least after enough counts. Is it possible to make a database of images to ban on sight without actually storing them as images on a server?

Attached: d2153a60d86d60b1880547777bb2d7d4.jpg (1200x600, 123K)

>Is it possible to make a database of images to ban on sight without actually storing them as images on a server?
>What is a rainbow table
Yes, it is. Unfortunately that would also prove that these pictures were once in your possession. Good luck on selling that to court when the whole idea of your network is to be somewhat apart from "normies".

Hmmm...so even when it preventative you're still responsible? How does that work exactly? If someone posts illegal content on your site, even if you delete it and uphold the law, you still have to deny it was ever there to begin with? What?

You'd probably have to look into google how they got around legally (finding cp and identifying it, before it comes up in searches). From what i know there's a solution in some europ countries, but usa is still in the "16year old sends a dickpick, he can be charged for distributing cp" pile.