Article mentions, briefly or more substantially:
- Lemmy
- Mastodon
- Retroshare
- Nostr
- Bluesky
- ZeroNet
- Secure Scuttlebutt
- Tor onion sites
- etc
Not my article, just one I found.
Article mentions, briefly or more substantially:
Not my article, just one I found.
The only real moderation that needs to happen is self moderation. If you see someone saying stuff that you don’t like, block them. That persons opinions are now gone for all that matters to you. There’s boo need for their opinions to be removed for everyone. Everyone has the capabilities to moderate their own experience.
If someone keeps being racist and it bothers you, block them. If someone keeps name calling and it bothers you, block them. Those of us who aren’t bothered by opinions we don’t agree with or by people saying things we don’t like can still engage with those people and perhaps even teach (or learn!) something.
There should be very few restrictions on speech, especially in an online forum/community, imo, restricted basically only for trying to incite or threatening actual physical harm.
Dude, apparently unlike you, I remember Usenet, which uses precisely the sort of system you’re describing, in its heyday. That means I’ve also seen discussion groups implode because they couldn’t get rid of a single bad actor. Killfiles alone aren’t enough, even when combined with community naming-and-shaming. Someone always lacks self-restraint and engages. That encourages the bad actor(s). They post more, often using multiple sockpuppets to get around people’s killfiles and flood out legitimate discussion. Newcomers to the group see masses of bad actor spam and fail to stick around. The lack of new blood kills the group.
Self-moderation simply doesn’t work. Yes, bad moderation happens and I’ve seen plenty of examples. But no overarching moderation is also the kiss of death.