Allowing an obnoxious person to hold forth as much as they like in your discussion group means you're excluding a larger number of people who silently opt out because they are not built for that kind of social interaction.
-
-
Then everyone is the decider of what can appear in threaded replies to their post, and groups can maintain shared block lists if they like, and the site doesn’t have to globally decide what people are allowed to say.
-
Exactly. Someone is going to say something I think is horrendous and vile and they should be allowed to say it... but! I can choose to block them and I will. I don't need Twitter deciding what I see, especially when that power will likely be abused by them at some point.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
+1 Seriously, why don't we do this already? We basically have 99% of the (technical) solution for federated forums already in the form of Git. We just need feeds and moderation tools. The few tools I know of (such as I2P syndie) look like something from the 90's, arcane relics.
- 4 more replies
-
-
-
My view is more pragmatic. Let anybody ban anybody or anything. Also let everybody post anything (not illegal) via their own hardware. Federated protocols resolves most of the distribution problem, by taking away effective censorship powers from centralized "data silos".
-
Moderation can essentially be transformed into subscriptions for whitelists / blacklists / content feeds / spam keywords, etc. You could have a forum that's essentially distributed along multiple servers, with multiple independent moderation teams, where you pick which to follow
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.