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.

  • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    18·
    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.worldOP
      24·
      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·
        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.

      • Dienervent@kbin.social
        3·
        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.