Just maximize freedom. Anyone can make a community as they see fit.
You want one for you, your wife and your kids? Feel free.
One about how a particular religion pisses you off with no moderation at all? Feel free.
You disagree with how someone else runs their particular community and want to start your own with less (or more) restrictive moderation? Feel free.
Maximize freedom is the way. Otherwise you're just censoring people's ability to make communities as they see fit.
It's more nuanced than that. Especially in the current age of rampant propaganda.
An existing community could have size, and use that size to spread massive lies.
Then use moderation to stamp out any fact checking of their lies.
Sure, you can create a competing community, but using what reach? Your reach has been stamped out by moderation.
Reach matters. Allowing low follower accounts/viewpoints/communities access to the masses is critically important. It prevents the consolidated influence structure that exists today on TradSo.
Who gets to decide what kind of group I can make, and how I'm allowed to moderate it? Is that censorship?
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm talking about mechanisms. Human mods are a very bad mechanism. Protocols are better. Just don't know to design one. It's very hard.
But what if someone wants a group with human moderation, not one enforced by an algorithm. Should they be free to have those types of communities still? Or should that freedom be removed?
We should all be able to be in charge of our attention and our feeds. Everyone should be able to have this control.
