> they could undo much of the harm done by our culturally divisive "social" networks.
Or it could be worse. Meta/Twitter spend a lot of resource to moderate content for a reason. I don't see how a decentralised model could solve the problem of content moderation.
They spend a lot moderating because their platforms largely allow anybody to spam/harass anybody else with no barriers. I suspect the lack of compartmentalization like Reddit or Mastodon is because of money. There is greater engagement with fewer barriers but more potential for abuse.
Email and default-deny for unknown addresses solves this problem entirely. No reason other protocols couldn't do the same. It's only a problem if you need to host content by any rando, then try to show it to as many people as possible to drive "engagement".
It's worth checking out the approach being considered by Matrix[0] which should make the solutions scalable and thus affordable. Empowering users and communities to distribute and delegate their moderation decisions seems like it will enable more innovation, rather than users being stuck with a "one size fits no one" regime.
No, not at all. If Reddit were to adopt this model, then anyone could act as a moderator for any subreddit, publishing their modding decisions and letting everyone else opt in to applying those decisions to the posts and comments that they see.
I suspect that if someone's modding decisions could be ignored at the click of a button, there would be less temptation for them to abuse their power, and the role of moderator would no longer attract people who want to force their view onto others.
More "select few" the better, enough echo chambers and you are just hearing yourself. Facebook is in the hands of Zuck.
The WWW exists, that allows "select few" to publish and irc/bbs/group chat are echo chambers, but these techa have not done the damage that social media has. They are doing something wrong.
One important aspect of this system needs to be the ability for communities, not other mods or admins, to have the ability to vote to add/remove moderators of their respective communities. Otherwise, power will concentrate amongst the moderators of popular communities which will undoubtedly lead to abuse, as we have seen on Reddit.
1/ Moderators aren't always aligned with the community (see recent /r/antiwork scandal).
2/ Reddit does not pay moderators for the labor they provide. Moderation is basically a job that takes hours of time and they profit off the backs of that free labor.
This is the Mastodon model! Your instance’s admin can enforce whatever rules she desires, and ban entire remote instances for breaking them.
For instance, if my instance has a rule that “nothing related to feet may be posted on No-Feets Friday”, I might decide to block foot.celebration for being a hotbed of constant footposting regardless of the day. If you disagree with my choice, there’s a ton of other instances out there you could move to, or go get foot.party and start your own. I might block these Friday-Foot-Friendly instances as well; if enough of my users decide they want to talk with people on those instances then I might suddenly find myself with everyone leaving. If sentiments are widely split on the subject of Feet On Friday then we might end up with two groups of instances that largely don’t federate with each other over this matter.
My favorite subs that I keep going back to are very lightly moderated. I have rage quit many subs I used to really enjoy, purely because of absurd and unnecessarily heavy handed moderation. In such subs, mod comments literally outnumber on topic ones, most comments get removed, and most threads get closed. But what you see isn’t the clean result of vigilance, it’s all the artifacts of the mod carnage, like heads on pikes by the road. The subject and content of these subs is the mods.
Or it could be worse. Meta/Twitter spend a lot of resource to moderate content for a reason. I don't see how a decentralised model could solve the problem of content moderation.