6 ms·
You're absolutely right about the fundamental tension here. Aaron's vision of truly free information is inspiring, and his work shaped how I think about these p
by ff12wq111 1y ago
You're absolutely right about the fundamental tension here. Aaron's vision of truly free information is inspiring, and his work shaped how I think about these problems.
The challenge is that even the most open platforms eventually hit practical problems - spam, harassment, off-topic flooding. The question becomes: who decides what stays and what goes?
What you're describing sounds like the difference between censorship (authority-driven) and curation (community-driven). Maybe the goal isn't eliminating all filtering, but making the process transparent and democratic?
- ff12wq111 1y agoI'm curious: in your view, is there a way to honor Aaron's vision while still keeping discussions useful? Or do you think any form of community moderation compromises that ideal?
- orionblastar 1y agoModeration compromises that ideal of a true democracy and free speech. Look at what happened to Reddit, as users and whole subs can be banned by moderators/administrators. Anything they don't like is just banned.
- ff12wq111 1y agoExactly . That's actually why we're experimenting with no traditional moderation in our new community - just transparent community governance where the rules themselves are democratically controlled. Aaron's vision shouldn't require compromising on either democracy or free speech.