Article mentions, briefly or more substantially:
- Lemmy
- Mastodon
- Retroshare
- Nostr
- Bluesky
- ZeroNet
- Secure Scuttlebutt
- Tor onion sites
- etc
Not my article, just one I found.
Article mentions, briefly or more substantially:
Not my article, just one I found.
Dude, apparently unlike you, I remember Usenet, which uses precisely the sort of system you’re describing, in its heyday. That means I’ve also seen discussion groups implode because they couldn’t get rid of a single bad actor. Killfiles alone aren’t enough, even when combined with community naming-and-shaming. Someone always lacks self-restraint and engages. That encourages the bad actor(s). They post more, often using multiple sockpuppets to get around people’s killfiles and flood out legitimate discussion. Newcomers to the group see masses of bad actor spam and fail to stick around. The lack of new blood kills the group.
Self-moderation simply doesn’t work. Yes, bad moderation happens and I’ve seen plenty of examples. But no overarching moderation is also the kiss of death.
I remember Usenet, in fact I still use it to this very day.
If people want to engage with the “bad actor” then that’s their right.
You know what also makes new people not stick around? Over zealous moderation, especially when it’s clearly biased towards maintaining an echo chamber. More and more people are waking up to the fact that censorship is getting out of control, especially on social media sites, and they don’t like it.
Given self moderation and overarching and overbearing moderation are both the kiss of death, the one where a few people control the whole thing and direct the echo chamber is the more destructive imo.