🌚 Nlggers I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug - that we should create communications technologies that allow people to send whatever they like to each other. And when people put their thumbs on the scale and try to say what can and can't be sent, we should fight back - both politically through protest and technologically through software.

🗨️ Fui I think the censorship is the problem word there. If moderation does not come from within (as it happens so often), it has to come from without. In that sense, it's not censorship, but a higher reason.

🌚 Nlggers I disagree. The viewpoints held predominantly by people with the power to apply despotic top down solutions implementing their own moral judgements on what can and cannot be said are themselves constantly shifting. It may very well be the case that you find your own points of view removed given they fall out of favour with those who are in control.

🗨️ Fui Think not of society, but as a body (the body politic). Different parts run by themselves, they self-regulate. But they also need some higher regulator, like the immune system, for when things go wrong (and, given enough time, they will go wrong). Moderation is just like that immune system.

🌚 Nlggers Censorship tends to favour a top down application of power by a handful of ideological despots. I certainly have seen the views of this group shift across time. In the 90s the EFF published "The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" which states "We are creating a world where any person may express his or her beliefs no matter how singular without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity". Now we have this: archive.org/detail...

🗨️ Fui Point is: moderation. You seem to always go the most extremist interpretation. Yes, censorship is bad. I won't even argue that. But moderation, at least in theory, is about keeping the balance, the delicate homeostatic state of a ever flowing and charging community.

Mhmm it would be cool if there were some kind of moderation framework that the users of an application could control, but too bad it always tends to be a black box subject to the whims of the moderators modulo overt and hidden interests, and humans seem to be pretty bad at self moderation overall...

🗨️ Fui As I see it, balance is always hard. It's a universal dictum. When everything is always flowing, to keep the balance is a constant uphill battle. That's why even moderators need some sort of outside moderation. And yes, this quickly becomes meta. But there you have it: the uphill battle.

Mhmm I would rather deal with the uphill battle than pretend it doesn't exist. I have yet to see something like software defined user moderation frameworks on sites like this, mostly a lot of effort goes into allowing users to filter stuff they see, or hiding stuff moderators don't want people to see (that some people may or may not agree with). As long as current efforts are focused on those two only, i dont see things changing much.

🗨️ Fui I'm all for facing the uphill battle too. No pretense. That's why I think moderation is needed. However, I recognize I may be missing some important pieces of the puzzle as you may concieve them. That to say that maybe we should continue this discussion, broadening it to include different perspectives on how to achieve a fair and balanced moderation.

Mhmm I dont think its possible to `achieve a fair and balanced moderation`[0], as software defined user moderation framework will allow what a site considers as [0] to be in constant flux.

🗨️ Fui Why not? What are the constraints? Is it technical? If yes, what are those technical limitations?

Mhmm their arent any technical constraints, but if a high majority group of users, at time t1, is ok with a users having their usernames as "nigger" but aren't replying to peoples msgs with "you damn nigger", that user wont be "shadow banned, blacklisted, down weighted or whatever[0]". but if at time t2, they decided that they would be [0] x amount of time, that would be ok under this framework too.