Moderation a conversation implies somebody is getting threatened with their comment being deleted or account suspended. That is censorship. Moderation is just the brand friendly term for it.
With great time, and care. Discord managed to do this in only 4 years, so it is possible. The cynical side of me says that a distributed social network, by definition, doesn't have the ability to run large marketing campaigns like Discord.
It's a little different. Discord launched amidst a power vacuum, at least with respect to a chat/community platform for video games. Xfire was the only real one, but it had been on the decline for years. A better analogy would be a decentralized Discord competitor trying to start right now and with the odds it has going up against Discord.
Discord got traction because it was substantially better than Teamspeak, and Skype leaks IPs letting jerks DDoS you. It turning into something of a social network was very unexpected.
"Look, many countries are enforcing privacy rights; the ad model isn't sustainable. You should start a social media network with a different model so that you can be the first mover who benefits from network effects when the privacy shoe finally drops".
Something like that, although I don't delude myself into thinking that's coming in the near future unless perhaps Apple makes it part of its new privacy-centric campaign. Even then I'm not sure Apple would do better with respect to free speech and moderation.
I don't really have a horse in this race because I've made my millions and long since quit the FAANG shit, but this is absolutely not a myth. Perhaps you've never worked at a FAANG, or perhaps we've confused being impactful for being promotable.
Part of the issue is the constant churn, not just change. It's change for change's sake, and more broadly, complexity for it's own sake.
Take microservices for example. Classic cargo culting development of what Google and Facebook are doing, but usually without a dedicated staffing team of hundreds. No wonder devs are burning out if they have to learn how to run a k8s cluster where a simple binary would've sufficed.
If it looks like a scam, then false positives are unavoidable. These companies are trying to protect average people from being scammed on their services, and I would honestly prefer they keep doing this. I do not want to spend hours on the phone to the bank with a shaken grandparent again (after they get cryptoscammed).
Claiming they are against "privacy-first services" is just creating a victim narrative where one does not exist. As people keep saying here on this very website, these platforms do not owe you a microphone.
Also, just one bit of advice, most developer types will have adblockers, so you're really not going to have a great time trying to target them with adverts.
>If it looks like a scam, then false positives are unavoidable.
Right, but this cannot be the end of the story. We cannot allow people's life chances getting crippled by an all powerful oligopoly for nothing more than clumsy choice of words.
>These companies are trying to protect average people from being scammed on their services, and I would honestly prefer they keep doing this
Really? That's what you wish for? Deplatforming for life without any due process to determine whether the person has actually done anything wrong? I cannot believe that anyone really wants this.
