Why is moderation in online communities always done server-side in a top-down authoritarian manner rather than as a client-side bottom-up voluntaryist approach similar to direct democracies?
It seems it would be easier if there were no mods but the user base was left to vote for and categorize topics instead.
You would only see the categories that you want and can choose to hide unpopular or controversial posts or view them if you're feeling particularly brave. No mods to employ, and no shit is deleted while people can still choose see or not see what they want to or don't want to see (e.g. breastfeeding pictures or images of the prophet Muhammad) instead of having a big corporation decide everything for us like as if we're babies.
Is it due to spam from Sybil attacks where bots start to take over? Is it possible to mitigate the effect of spambots while still maintaining a centralized approach (and all of its benefits) or is the currently fashionable (but slow and limited) decentralized approach with DApps and whatever where Sybil attacks are prevented via decentralization and consensus systems the only feasible solution we have at the moment?
Easily abused Could organize and vote gay porn onto the front page
Matthew Ward
Mods are always huge dickheads. Most people in power tend to abuse the situation, it always happens.
Christopher Fisher
>but the user base was left to vote for and categorize topics instead Sounds like a website you should go back to
Isaac Bell
become democracy is retarded and nothing would get done
Joshua Carter
Moderators are retarded rulecucks Upvotes / downvotes are reddit
The only solution is NO moderation and let users filter what they don't like.
Joshua Brooks
then this place would turn into reddit the chaos has to be contained for there to be chaos
Lucas Gutierrez
Obviously a republic is the true best option. Every 3 months a new set of mods should be voted in by the others in the community
Ethan Diaz
inevitably the queers and other perverts would group together to turn the site into their fucked up notion of freedom (the right to be a pervert) and ban anyone who even uttered a micro-aggression. You only have to look at /b/ to see I am right. It's homo pervert paradise there. Risa for traps
Sebastian Roberts
>Breastfeeding ban Wtf
Easton Sanders
Democracy is dumb. People are dumb. Everyone shouldn't get to decide anything. Only the qualified should be able to make decisions.
Josiah Hernandez
>It seems it would be easier if there were no mods but the user base was left to vote for and categorize topics instead. This would just promote whatever ideas the majority supports and silence other people who hold different opinions, even if those opinions are not abusive or objectively incorrect in any way. This might be somewhat workable if the topic of discussion is something which can be evaluated from a completely objective point of view, as in such case there is something like an objective truth that can be voted for, but this would not work at all with any subjective topic of discussion. Unpopular opinions would just be removed because the majority does not like them, so you wouldn't be able to actually talk about anything other than whatever everyone is circlejerking about.
Xavier Sanchez
>bottom-up voluntarism >democracy Pick one and only one. Democracy is mob rule, the opposite of voluntarism and bottom-up systems. Moderation exists to impose a certain guideline in a place, it is top-down by design, and that is ok on internet communities. The only advantage mediocrity has over excellency is numerical. The people who came up with democracy knew this. Fuck democracy.
Luis Martin
They won't be removed, but perhaps hidden under the default settings. Those who still want to see them could check the option to view all content and they will show up.
It's ultimately voluntaryist because you can choose to look at everything if you wanted to. The direct democratic component is only used for classifying content (e.g. any pictures tagged "breastfeeding" by enough people are likely to contain breastfeeding so if you don't want to see that stuff, then you can choose to filter out those images).
Dominic Bennett
>They won't be removed I don't see how you can be certain of this at all. >but perhaps hidden under the default settings But this is bad enough to make the entire idea unviable as a discussion platform anyway.
Easton Thomas
That's a Sybil attack, and I agree it is probably the main flaw in such a system.
Decentralized communities are typically able to avoid being overrun by Sybil attacks by making it costly to abuse the network, either by forcing users to pay to post or forcing them to donate computing resources to support the network or forcing nodes to perform useless calculations. However, none of those options seem feasible when you're trying to achieve mainstream adoption.
Bentley Adams
Because you need to join a community that shows who they are and you’ll join it if it fits you. If it’s communirt driven there is no real sign of authority and leads to extremist take overs that will change your community and you’ll just leave and look for another community in an endless cycle.
Evan Gray
if I can't ban my userbase for not agreeing with my political views it doesn't work.
Facebook often deleted photos that showed mothers breastfeeding in the past (I have no idea if it's still true today).
Mason Cox
So, Reddit?
Eli Russell
Giving users the ability to vote on comments is almost always a mistake. It always become a "I disagree"-button, which inevitably turn such sites into giant hive-minds. Case in point: Reddit, Blizzard forums and YouTube.
Owen Sanders
Because democracy is shit and doesn't work. Deep down everyone knows this, that's why small communities such as forums are not democratic.
Liam Lewis
Fucking Facebook
Lincoln Parker
Redito is a democracy, that's why it is so fake and gay. 4channel is a gook monarchy, that's why it is so good.
Angel Howard
So reddit, why don't you go there
Landon Bell
Theoretically, is there any way to implement meritocracy in the internet environment?
Samuel Anderson
Jow Forums. The best threads are remembered forever, the worst die quickly.
Samuel Nelson
Jow Forums is not a meritocracy. Good posters are remembered, but they don't control anything. They cannot magically remove frog-posters and Jow Forumsniggers for example.
Hunter Bailey
No. He can't post CP and gore on reddit. That's the point.
