-8

Fellow Lemmings, how to create Social Media that does not have mods? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am an anarchist, so the idea of the community doing all the work, creating content, and then mods basically ruling over them as a reward, just doesn't sit right with me.

We the users should collectively be in control of all our social media, economically and with regards of controling what goes on, on there.

All social media get's its value from the users i.e. the network effect. However the users are subjected to a hierachical place where individuals in power act as tyrants.

We create the value we should be in charge.

Fellow Lemmings how can we create social media were the users are king/queen?

post Scriptum: just having a voting mechanism, might be gamed by unsavory charcters or groups to game such a system, unless voting requires your clear name id, which comes with other issues of course.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The public square doesn’t have moderators.

Yes it does and it always has. There has always been social group control in the public square

I also see no reason why there couldn’t be a way for the community itself to deal with disruptive actors through some mechanism that does not put any sole individual in power.

Cool. then create you own lemmy instance and run it the way you want.

Good luck.

one question, if the majority of the accounts on your instance vote to allow CSAM, what will you do?

While you may be an anarchist, someone (you, as the one running the instance) will be legally responsible.

[-] BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Cool. then create you own lemmy instance and run it the way you want.

that is the point I don't want it to run how "I" want but it should be ran however the community as a whole wants it to.

I think you are misunderstanding my question.

This is not a social issue but a technical one.

If you have votes, they can be trivially rigged by somebody creating a number of sock puppet accounts. If anybody can just do how they please, unsavory characters will flood the site with aweful content. If you require ID or a phone number (those can both be faked) then you just introduce a whole other set of issues, by basically doxing everybody to the people who run the site, and by extension the powers that be.

I feel this problem requires cryptography of some sort and the ability to establish identity for users without de-anonymizing them. idk if that makes sense to you

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel this problem requires cryptography of some sort and the ability to establish identity for users without de-anonymizing them. idk if that makes sense to you

Sorry, but that is laughable.

You want people to be both responsible and anonymous at the same time.

You are dreaming.

[-] BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I upvoted you, But sometimes dreams come true, if you make them.

I do not believe this to be laughable at all. We are faced with a problem: Online discourse is the rule, the public square is a thing of the past (as private entities encroach on it) -> if all online places are ruled with an iron fist by sometimes benevolent sometimes maliscious tyrants, we can kiss free speech good bye.

This problem demands a solution. There is nothing laughable about this. ridicule me all you want but I know I am on to something.

[-] Dienervent@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

If what you're looking for is a decentralized pseudonymous system. Then this is absolutely possible with today's cryptography.

It's called public-private keys. You create a private key that you can use to "sign" your messages. And people can verify that is was you that wrote the message by using the public key.

No one can pretend to be you because only you have access to your private key and the public key can't be used to find out what the private key is.

It's still anonymous because you don't have to say who you are when you create the private key.

It's not perfect because the same person can create as many different keys as they want. So you can't really "ban" someone. They'll just create a new key and pretend to be someone new.

this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023

-8 points (41.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26997 readers

1100 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.