private property
How so?
No power to the membership. All power to the moderators. No courts. No legal process. Moderators’ rule is law. No necessity to even explain or justify their actions. As if it were their house.
There’s always going to be someone taking care of the platform you’re using. You’re free to make your own instance or community too
I agree some platforms need more oversight boards and options for arbitration, in particular when the automated systems make mistakes and there’s no way to fix it.
However that adds a WHOLE LOT of overheard, something that the one Lemmy community you’re upset about does not have the capacity for
An unjust system is a filter that prefers stupid. I think that’s fair to say. And with time the stupid only amplifies via positive feedback.
So it’s a choice between stupid and chaos.
Hmm, tough choice.
So… run a better one and people will follow?
Ya I know.
Thing is, I’m an outlier. I post strange stuff. And the 99% is the opposite. So our ideas of what’s comfortable may differ.
Or maybe I’m just posting to the wrong subs
Oh, that’s what you mean. It’s not so bad in that regard considering anyone can run an instance, there’s no “highest court” that has a final word.
Instance-runners have final word over their own instance, of course, but I can’t see how else that could work.
You’re on someone else’s server, after all.
But it’s our conversation.
You imply that the server has greater value than the conversation. That isn’t so.
As if it were their house.
Because that is literally the case. The server you’re using right now (for free, mind you) belongs to someone else. That someone provides the service to house your posts and comments, and you really wonder why “they” have the last word?
Imagine you’d open your doors for a bunch of strangers but politely ask them to not make a mess. Someone dumps their garbage on the floor. You ask them to clean up and/or leave, and they reply with an indignant “OMG you act as if this was your house!”
Our posts and comments are the treasure here.
A better analogy would be a bank. You deposit some money and then the bank says “this is my money”.
That would be fucked up. Right?
If you insist on this example, then don’t forget that the “bank” made you agree to the terms and conditions when opening your bank account, in which it is clearly stated that the cash you deposit belongs to the bank then. If you don’t want to give the “bank” your money, then just don’t deposit it, easy as that.
When you created your account on lemm.ee you had to agree to the terms and conditions of the fediverse. And now you complain about things that you agreed to as if it was some sort of conspiracy to retroactively f*ck over clueless customers. I don’t really get where your issue is.
If you want an online service to publicly house your “treasure” (content) without giving other people the rights to use/censor said content, you can simply create your own instance anytime you want and apply your own rules - but then it will cost you money because servers don’t run on love and sunshine. And if you want that very service to be free of charge and provided by someone else, then you have to play by their rules.
I don’t think the bank is a good analogy, you get a benefit out of using their infrastructure which isnt represented in your example.
It’s more like someone running a makerspace, you can come use all the machinery they’ve put in and produce whatever you want (within some rules of the owner) even in collaboration with others. But they’ve put a clause in the contract that they get a copy of everything you produce there.
In the end you’re getting the benefit of using their machinery and space to collaborate and they’re getting a copy of your content. You can either decide that deal is worth it or start your own space.
What alternative system would you propose?
Something algorithmic. I have a couple ideas in that direction.
Assuming a good moderation automation, what good reason would anybody have for wanting the job?
Who puts data on a public website, owned by someone else, and expects their data to be private? Read their terms and conditions.
That… utterly failed to address my point. Or even come close to it.
And then it got solid upvotes.
THIS is an example of… ah fuck it.
Yes but also no. In ancient times, people would etch public conversations into marble pillars. Those were indeed public, but someone owned the building.
Actual public bulletin boards are generally on private property (such as grocery stores) and it’s up to the property owners to moderate them (taking things down after a delay or when it’s inappropriate, etc)
Yes, hearing the reddit CEO guy talk about the value of their data was pretty messed up. But they own it, they created the website and did the right things at the right time (right thing being they existed), so it’s theirs. They pay the server bills, and maintain the code. Idk if “maintain” is the right word when you make your website progressively worse with every update, but they do coding thingies with it, hence it is theirs.
Not really. If you want, you can start conversations on state-run comment sections of government websites. They aren’t allowed to ban you. Just as an example, US politicians are forbidden from blocking people on their official Twitter accounts.
Everything on the Internet is owned by someone. Until someone comes up with a BitTorrent-type protocol for this stuff, anyway. Someone is paying the costs of hosting and someone is paying the costs of development. The person who pays is the owner. The owner can be a private company, a non-profit organisation, or the state. It depends how you want it.
For me personally, I think the current model works well enough.
Is it just the subs I go to or does this place go torches and pitchforks on anybody with a strange idea?
Honestly you wrote your post on a fairly polarizing way. If you wanted calmer discourse around the strange idea, you could have gone with something like “What are your thoughts about this?” instead of “Doesn’t that seem rather fucked up?”
Edit: also maybe be less combative in your comments, but I’m starting to recognize that this complaint was not made in good faith.
Ah the accusation. The exclamation point of the enlightened.
Yup.
By engaging with this comment, henceforth referred to as “the utterance,” you hereby acknowledge and solemnly swear that you shall not, directly or indirectly, utilize the aforesaid utterance for the nefarious purpose of training any large language model, artificial intelligence, or sentient toaster without the express, written consent of the undersigned linguistic virtuoso. Failure to adhere to this prohibition shall render you liable to a surcharge of one thousand dollars per violation, to be remitted forthwith. Additionally, any and all profits, monetary gains, or wealth accrued by aforementioned language model shall be subject to a 10% tithe, payable promptly to the raconteur of the original utterance.
deleted by creator
