Guess saidit is just a new reddit

submitted by yabbit from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

In general, freedom and no censorship is the way to go. Said is said it because Reddit censors. Almost all of us were redditors, that abandoned Reddit.

Said it is not said it because people curate it. The fact is that there are people who are only happy when they control other people. And they are not helping anything.

[–]Kuasocto 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If you want almost absolute freedom of speech then I guess kiwi-farms and 4chan are for you. For something reddit-like to work there IS a need for mods, otherwise the subs won't actually be about the topics they're supposed to. If you have a car forum and people keep spamming frog photos and derailing the conversations in the direction of discussing frogs, that does hurt the purpose of a CAR forum.

Or maybe no mods approach could work. Tho that wouldn't be saidit. But now I'm wondering how would a reddit clone work where NO ONE can get ever banned (aside for bots). Maybe such an environment would be able to have specific niche forums that actually work, who knows. People would start to govern themselves instead of looking for mods to ban people they find annoying.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I knew this speech was coming. I literally knew this was what you were going to say. Go up. Re look at my comment.

I said IN GENERAL.

This means that generally, you cunts censoring is bad. What happens when you censor, is you just shut up ideas that YOU DONT LIKE.

You are not a decider of what people think or say. And on a platform, where ANYONE can say ANYTHING at ANYTIME. Censorship is not only incorrect, it is also wrong.

I understand subs staying true. You did not bring up the obvious point, but there could be a sub dedicated to raping young women. Like a sub, where men get together and rape young women. It could happen.

And I would hang, not censor, every one of them.

There are plenty of good reasons to censor.

But your reason sucks. It’s not a defendable argument. And, in fact, the only way you win the argument, is by censoring the other side.

[–]Kuasocto 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Killing people is the ultimate form of censorship. Shutting down ideas is one thing, murdering people who hold specific ideas is the most extreme position possible. And of course the example you used is with "raping young women". Of course a white knight gets a high out of thinking of murdering some imaginary """evil""".

Kicking out frog-derailment from a car forum is not "shutting up ideas" it's keeping a car forum focused on cars.

You're stupidly angry for someone who has no argument and just says meaningless crap like "Censorship is not only incorrect, it is also wrong.".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Found the guy who isn’t happy unless he’s telling people what to do.

You can tell, because they double speak. Say things that are inherently untrue. “The Skye is red, and you should listen to me”.

[–]Kuasocto 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Man, the way you speak makes me think you might legitimately have some extreme version of autism or alike, that reply makes no sense at all and seems completely detached from the conversation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m diagnosing you with autism.

“I win”.

Hahaha o shit. Someone get this redditor back home. Man I haven’t seen this shit in forever. Im laughing so hard.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That would be wrong. If someone wants to talk about frogs on a car forum, you just need to setup your clients to filter, instead of the server. Right now, on Reddit there is probably some neural network figuring out whether or not any given post is spam or not, which also makes running social media at scale expensive. If, instead, you would just do the filtering client side and the analysis of the posts would be shared, then the cost could remain low and there is no need for "mods" anymore. A "mod" would be nothing more but an extra input to the client side filtering.

Really, the concept of a mod just derives from power hungry morons.

[–]Kuasocto 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds complicated at a technical level. Which is kinda important because most of here are tech cavemen. Probably not you, but you get what I mean.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it would be somewhat complicated, but it's not like it would require new computer science. It would probably be revolutionary and destroy the value of the platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) if it were to exist for 5 years in the way I described it and were to be fully developed.

The only problem with such a model is that there is no real incentive for anyone to do all the work, so it would have to be funded like diaspora was, but it's likely it would need $50M in funding. Of course, one could start with a simpler version, but that one would not achieve the full vision. Ultimately, building a Reddit like experience (sans the dystopia) is a lot of work.