![]() ![]() ![]() This just feels like a rehash of the "think about the children" argument. You may think the rules prevent harm today, but what happens if and when they encourage harm tomorrow? What if the rules turned against you? Wouldn't you want to be able to speak out? The small groups of Twitter and Reddit moderators are far too small to ever represent the diversity of human thought. Allowing a small subset of people to control the rules for the masses has never, will never, and could not ever work in a free society. If you can't speak out or express thoughts against the rules, you are ceding your own ability to ever change the rules. Remove the overhead of central administration and opinion checking. Allow the platform to function within different jurisdictions.ģ. Help define the Overton window in a more organic fashionĢ. I thought about this for a long time and decided to write up what I would consider to be an acceptable framework for any given social media platform which would:ġ. And as such it is open to abuse whether it happens or not. If we're to take reddit as an example moderation happens by individuals rather than all members of the community. Reddit for example is moderated by 'members of the community'. Here, I purposefully state 'the community' rather than 'representatives of the community' as these are two very different things. Meaning that the limits of the Overton window are defined by a small set of people rather than the community itself. Today most (if not all) social media platforms seem to be relying on a central or centralised moderation system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |