As for moderation, it’s far more time efficient for a small group of people to handle this than it is to leave it up to individual users.
If one person posts a spam message, it’s easier for a couple people to report it and a moderator to remove the post/user than it is to have a thousand people have to see it and decide if they want to ignore/block it.
Yes it’s efficient. And the price is you have a cop now, telling us who can talk and what they can say. Maybe a good cop, maybe bad, probably limited in the ways that people generally are. But this is obvious.
Ideally the conversation would be controlled by its participants and none other. That’s also obvious.
For each participant in the conversation, tools to navigate the complexities of the1000 person conversation. Why not? What’s so special about an overarching authority?
And the price is you have a cop now, telling us who can talk and what they can say.
Lemmy’s solution is that you can vote with your feet (=choose another instance with an admin to your liking)
Of course the solution is incomplete. Real bad admins remain a possibility.
That is kinda equal to a free world: Real bad humans are a possibility.
But:
Big fat BUT:
If you really want a world where all bad people (according to your own definition) are excluded, then you have turned yourself into that cop that you despise so much.
The admin keeps the server running.
As for moderation, it’s far more time efficient for a small group of people to handle this than it is to leave it up to individual users.
If one person posts a spam message, it’s easier for a couple people to report it and a moderator to remove the post/user than it is to have a thousand people have to see it and decide if they want to ignore/block it.
Yes it’s efficient. And the price is you have a cop now, telling us who can talk and what they can say. Maybe a good cop, maybe bad, probably limited in the ways that people generally are. But this is obvious.
Ideally the conversation would be controlled by its participants and none other. That’s also obvious.
No, it’s not obvious that conversations would be controlled by it’s participants when there are hundreds or thousands of participants.
It works fine for 5 people, or even 10, but not once it scales beyond a certain point.
Just like having a voice call with 5 or 10 people can work, but with 1000 people you have to force mute everyone or it’s going to be a shit show.
For each participant in the conversation, tools to navigate the complexities of the1000 person conversation. Why not? What’s so special about an overarching authority?
Lemmy’s solution is that you can vote with your feet (=choose another instance with an admin to your liking)
Of course the solution is incomplete. Real bad admins remain a possibility.
That is kinda equal to a free world: Real bad humans are a possibility.
But:
Big fat BUT:
If you really want a world where all bad people (according to your own definition) are excluded, then you have turned yourself into that cop that you despise so much.
I think that being the cop in charge of my own perspective is quite acceptable. It’s putting other people in charge that I want to avoid.
So you have to create an instance, and be that bad admin.
And then don’t forget to hate yourself ;-)