My point here is that if you think the current social media options have "heavy handed" moderation, you're probably the problem, not them.
The argument you’re making is just a different face of the “I have nothing to hide” in the privacy debates.
This is nowhere controversial.
Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
I don't think it's as rare or controversial as you think, many people just haven't formed a full opinion on judicial interpretation. Textualism in particular appeals to STEM folks. We've needlessly politicized them as Red Team vs Blue Team, when they don't see themselves as anything close to that. They're all first and foremost legal nerds.
Now if you're making pro-life arguments wrapped with original intent, I can see you getting some aggressive pushback.
Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time.
* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it.
Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country?
* Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed that paying taxes to Britain is good and beneficial to the Colonies.
Many good ideas shatter the existing “consensus” dramatically. I’m glad that boundaries can and do get pushed because that’s how we come up with better ideas and systems.
So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright.
(1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence?
(2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too?
(3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win?
(4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?
I think I've been modded for:
- trying to get people to hate less on Russians
- on the other hand, in the same forum: trying to tell some over eager people that no, Russians aren't saints and it isn't all NATOs fault.
- pointing out (as an insider that was supposedly one of the victims in a major news story recently) that the "facts" didn't check out at all.
On the other hand we should be extremely careful when their military are "helpfully" supporting "oppressed" Russian minorities in Ukraine etc etc.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Small communities can sometimes survive without too much moderation, where the consequences of being shunned are enough to keep people who want to participate mostly civil to each other. But "success" in terms of rapid user base growth inevitably leads to enough members who are prepared to be uncivil to each other, at which stage the members who desire a civil discourse to either demand moderation or to leave it to become a youtube-comments style cesspit.
It's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. Technology just amplifies the problem enormously, it doesn't _cause_ it. Jerks don't last long at small local bars, because the locals set the tone and shun people who don't behave according to local norms. Large beer barns, concert venues, or festivals largely cannot rely on local norms and custom, or for regulars to guide newcomers to understanding and appropriate behaviour. And there will _always_ be some people who are jerks, or who's personal understanding of acceptable behaviour differs from the group norm. In the real world they hopefully find "their people" and their places. People who want to behave like outlaw bikers hang out in biker bars, not piano jazz clubs. If you want to build a social media site, you need to realise that eventually someone from 4chan who's idea of fun is trolling normies is gonna show up, and if the place looks "fun" to him, he can put out a call to hundreds of his friends to come show up too. You need to have a plan to deal with that before it happens, if you have a vision for your site that isn't /b/ To some people, that's gonna look like "overly heavy moderation" even if you do it right.
and mate thats a ton of shaming in your tone .. please consider showing some compassion. I fail to see how his comment provoked yours ..
Hah people still use this term unironically?
http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html
or in other words, if you've never had and issues with moderation, you might not ever take risks or challenges with your opinions.