Paradigm change: Users must earn the right to post and comment

submitted by discountmeat from self.SaidIt

I don't believe Saidit's value is in being a free speech platform. People can open a blog to do that. My perspective is that Saidit is here to be a platform that engenders a healthy community of sharing and discussion. People without a heart and open mind need not apply. If I was throwing a large party, I wouldn't invite people with low character. To that end, Saidit could switch the paradigm and allow new users to show they have significant contributions to make before being giving power to post. If any user insists on frustrating the moderators or other members, uninvite them from the party until they develop their character. The community narrative will eventually conform to the founders preferences. If we have a benevolent dictator in charge, I can only imagine what greatness is next. Trying to allow all comers a space to party will eventually end in a party where only the lowest, loudest characters are happy. Saidit might be tempted to copy reddit, but that can only be taken so far. You don't want to copy their censorship of the truth or their promotion of propaganda. Take it a step further and don't copy their user adoption model. I acknowledge this is a complex subject technically and philosophically.

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SeasideLimbs 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure if the analogy of a blog works. The problem with blogs is that they are disconnected from the online spaces that people actually spend time in. If somebody were to create a really great subreddit and make it flourish, it would appear on r/all or people would link to it in other subreddits, people would hear about it, it would grow. A blog could be filled with great content and be entirely ignored because nobody would ever come across that blog in the first place unless they happened to google some very specific terms and wade through dozens of other search results. Even then, unless they actively remembered to do so, they likely wouldn't keep up with new blog posts because there would be nothing to notify them.

Saidit and sites like it benefit from the fact that they can be made up of countless separate communities whose content can be funneled into a stream of content that's individualized for each user depending on which communities they subscribe to. This individualization means that users and entire communities aren't required to keep up a high level of quality for that stream of content to remain high in quality because they are so easily ignored by unsubscribing or never subscribing in the first place. Communities that users consider interesting, high in quality or truthful will stay in their content-streams and have higher engagement while others will either remain small or wither away. People are allowed to post whichever content they like and build communities the way they want and users in turn are allowed to focus their attention on whichever communities they deem worthy of it.

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

Think of it as a new permission that a moderator can flip on optionally. That way you have the option to curate your community rather than being on defense if the sub gets popular.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Isn't that kind of what Voat tried to do? And look how that turned out.

If we have a benevolent dictator in charge, I can only imagine what greatness is next.

And what if the dictator is no longer benevolent? We need things to be future-proof and not just hope for the best.

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

Keeping the code open source is future proofing.

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

To address your first point: Voat used Comment Contribution Points or CCP. I don't see it working that way. Use your judgement, not an algorithm. If a new user wanted to join my community, I would look at their comment history to see if they are a good fit.

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

You're just interested in your fact-free safe space.

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

I am interested in keeping out non-helpful cruft comments that don't enhance the conversation. But what a wonderful opportunity to illustrate my idea!

The premise here says a public conversation is special and the right to join it even more so.

Since you don't know me, you might believe I am interested in fact-free safe spaces. I can't personally think of one person in my life that would say that of me. What we have here is an accusation without a relationship. If someone close to me had told me what you did, I would have to take it to heart. But you feel justified in saying it for your own reasons, and it's not based on truth of knowing me or understanding what I am proposing.

In other words, you joined a public conversation without earning that right. You must show driving proficiency to past the drivers test before getting your license to drive a heavy vehicle at high speeds, why not earn the right to join a public conversation?

The "safe space" notion isn't a bad one. Most of the time, I want a safe place. Many times I don't. A better way to think about it is an incubation space for thoughtful people to inspire each-other. Safe from attacks yet full of cognitive dissonance.

Here's how the situation would have gone if under the proposed paradigm: You come across a post of mine and want to comment. Since the community doesn't know you, you can't post yet, lest you drag down and discourage me from posting again. The community would comment on my post, as they had many times before and I had to their post. If I were to post again and you had just been admitted to the community, you would never squander such a privilege with an unfounded character attack because you don't want to loose your privilege. Rather than attacking me, you would say something helpful. You comment: "You're just interested in your fact-free safe space" could have read: "This paradigm shift would lead to a lack of debate and criticism". Then, your perspective, the thing which no one else in the world has, can enhance a public conversation!

In this scenario, you get to decide to stay on the attack and not participate, or be helpful and participate. The community gets to focus on honing themselves through constructive dialog and idea sharing. They can let in as few or as many members as they like.

In the end, this comment was helpful!

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

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

    Saidit is not uncensorable, it just has a policy that is leaps and bounds above others. It has a policy about being transparent when removing users. Policy doesn't make it truly uncensorable. If you want truly unscensorable, post your work on the blockchain. That's impossible to censor as long as the internet is live.

    I'm all for tearing down the internet as we know it and separate those who can handle different opinions and those who needs safe spaces!

    Not following. Different opinions are impossible to avoid, and that's not what I am proposing. I am proposing Saidit elevate the privelidges required to participate in a public conversation. People tend to get childish and mean when they have anonymity online. That's what I would like to separate out. See my comments on kokolokoNightcrawler's comment to get a better understanding.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      If you were moderating a community I wanted to join, I couldn't since I don't meet your standards. That's just fine. I can find one that is a good fit or conform to your standards if I really want to contribute.

      The recent blacklisting feature is neat and may be enough to fix the problem. Shared blacklists would add even more power.

      It's takes a certain type of person to post an idea and KNOW it will have to be barraged. The whitelist (or shared blacklist) will empower a wider range of contributors by preventing the attack in the first place.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

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

        I can't tell, the text doesn't fully describe the rules.

        public anyone can view and submit

        restricted anyone can view, but only some are approved to submit links

        private only approved members can view and submit

        What appears to be missing is another option allowing anyone to view, and restricting comments and submissions to a approved users.

        Is that the case or is that how restricted works now?