• jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    0·
    9 days ago

    And who do you propose has the job of moderating the moderators? Whoever that group is, same problem… instance admins, and if you don’t like the instance admins… build your own instance, with better rules, etc. Turtles all the way down.

    You vote with your time and attention, if your participating in a community you endorse it. If you want to change the community you can, as above. Wishing, or externalizing, your desires onto other people’s behavior (the lifeless moderators your negging in the above comment) will not be effective in realizing the change you want to see.

    And if the response to that is ‘woah, woah, I don’t want to do all that work’ then… clearly the moderation isn’t that bad

    if the only people who can moderate, as you posit, don’t have a life - implying you can’t moderate because you do have a life… then the moderation isn’t bad enough to motivate you to take on responsibility… so its good enough.

      • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
        0·
        8 days ago

        (You’re linked post doesn’t address any of my points, and just repeat yourself, but okay fine)

        Okay, if I understand that post correctly, you want direct democracy to determine moderation in a community.

        How do you prevent brigading? What about a community talking about sensitive topics, like diet and exercise? Or vegan versus carnivore? One side’s going to have more people than the other, and they can moderate the other into silence?

        I think it’s an interesting experiment, just like craigslist used to do, or slashdot with metamoderation.

        If you build it, I’ll give it a shot