New Idea: Filtering STABs On SaidIt

submitted by JasonCarswell from self.PhoenixForum

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Cutting content includes cutting those who post and comment because of their content.

Just like on Mastodon and other decentralized platforms, echo chambers will form, as they're free to do so.

A central server is problematic as a target for perpetual attack. One shared federation is better, more flexible, and more resilient. Yes, some could vote democratically (with related problems), some could rule with an iron fist (with related problems), and some could have a trusted-team with fair, open, and accountable social management systems (with related problems).

I don't know of what neutral party you mean, but I like that it's all openly shared.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

An echo chamber where all removed content is available with a click, downvotes can't be abuse and moving to a slightly less radical faction unlocks more content with no downsides.

Decentralization is good. But all illegal content has to be removed. Or else. Even if all files have to be external, illegal content could be stored at obscure servers with no obvious owner. Can't sue them, will sue you.

An ability to download and clone all content could be useful though, for emergencies. I'm not advocating for literally one server, but the system needs to have the ability to remove illegal content without the ability to remove unwanted content.

Neutrals are those whom radicals want to recruit, not ban. They can interact with both poles, and subtly deradicalize them.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

where all removed content is available with a click, downvotes can't be abuse

I love this. I've been thinking about this too as it relates to my MetaVote idea. I was thinking that instead of hard echo chambers there might be a way to ratio their content to also include a small percentage of the best rated content from the other side for opening minds - thus hopefully bringing them together. I may share a text outline which would do it an disservice as it's a simple GUI interface too and also needs animation to really showcase how revolutionary it would be.

I do like the auto-archive all content idea. Decentralization and illegal content might be better managed if it were encrypted. All media would have to go through the forum that would unlock it, while being impossible for anyone to just look at the archives. Remove the key and it would then be locked away scrambled and anonymous forever, and maybe unlocked only to be scrubbed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

include a small percentage of the best rated content from the other side for opening minds

Radicals won't accept this. They only listen to their slightly less radical compatriots.

I do like the auto-archive all content idea.

Auto-archive is a nice name. Hard to argue against.

illegal content might be better managed if it were encrypted

In theory yes. But in practice, which authority would tolerate the existence of a server, or a network, filled with encrypted illegal content?

and maybe unlocked only to be scrubbed

An interesting idea. If no community accepts the responsibility, just remove it. But what if some community is malicious? You could arrest its administration, but the content still exists. What now?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

include a small percentage of the best rated content from the other side for opening minds

Radicals won't accept this. They only listen to their slightly less radical compatriots.

Radical factions are not entirely made up of radicals. Those who question can peak in secret. Besides, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't their site, and if it was they could tweak it as they see fit.

illegal content might be better managed if it were encrypted

In theory yes. But in practice, which authority would tolerate the existence of a server, or a network, filled with encrypted illegal content?

Who would know? Moreover, you wouldn't keep it long. People report it as illegal, it gets muted, admins verify and it gets scrubbed or restored because someone was wrong, intentionally or by accident.

and maybe unlocked only to be scrubbed

An interesting idea. If no community accepts the responsibility, just remove it. But what if some community is malicious? You could arrest its administration, but the content still exists. What now?

The encrypted media would need to come from the original source site who only holds the key, even if it has already been decentralized and shared. Anyone could report it to mute it, but only the source could unlock it or scrub it. After a time period (ie. a week) or a number of views (ie. a million) without being reported it would be pretty safe to say it's not illegal content and the key could be released. If one slips by somehow then there should of course be a way to scrub and report it to others sharing it.

If there are problematic trolls or communities, then report them to the authorities if you can trust them. Or if problems are common, make sure that the fray must earn their rights to post unfiltered as a civilian. If it's a community then filter them off your instance site.

It's not simple, but there's always a way.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

admins verify and it gets scrubbed or restored

Now you have admins. With power. I don't think it's avoidable. The ability to clone the forum with new admins is as far as the law allows.

encrypted media would need to come from the original source site

The problem is, if your system allows people to ban the illegal, it also allows them to remove the unwanted.

Radical factions are not entirely made up of radicals. Those who question can peak in secret. Besides, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't their site, and if it was they could tweak it as they see fit.

Content from the other side will anger them. Content from their less radical allies seems like a better idea. Their radical faction would have no reason to ban it, everything is voluntarily, no conflict arises.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Now you have admins. With power. I don't think it's avoidable. The ability to clone the forum with new admins is as far as the law allows.

Admins always have the power over the site, the code, the data, etc.

They can choose to be secret or be as transparent about judgement calls as possible. We may never know what they do behind the scenes. The only way to know is to co-host an instance of your own.

The problem is, if your system allows people to ban the illegal, it also allows them to remove the unwanted.

Yes. It's all about trust if you're not in full control. The illegal should not be open to inspection. The forum will be open to people to claim that their legit content has been censored and then people can leave to another instance if they don't trust the admin(s). The admins could check each other too. And if there's debate it can be settled with some kind of fair, open, and accountable social management systems.

Content from the other side will anger them. Content from their less radical allies seems like a better idea. Their radical faction would have no reason to ban it, everything is voluntarily, no conflict arises.

If it was 5 or 10 percent from "the other side" you could make it 10 or 20 percent from the "centrists" and 30 to 40 from "less radicals" too. Tweak the numbers as you see fit, perhaps under their council and/or protests.

If they don't want to get angry they can start their own instance for a perfect echo-chamber if they like, or they can just keep bitching - or maybe learn something from the other side.