squashkin@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
this is an interesting divide in people who are for personal freedom: just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean a private property owner couldn't act like a government and ban it.
So, it's almost a separate political stance of also being for "freedom" on a private property in certain ways. Like I might not want certain drugs to be illegal, but I might not want people doing those drugs at a store I owned, kind of thing. But then other people might be for things being both legal and allowed on properties they own when they allow guests over.
so you could have a forum theoretically that allows free speech on every community (doesn't allow mods to moderate as they want to) versus one that allows mods the freedom to moderate as they want. The one that would allow for "powermod abuse" is actually freer in a way than the one that would force every community to allow free speech.
This is what I call "authoritarian libertarianism", like with laws that mandate no "vaccine" passports - they're actually kind of anti-freedom in a way, because people should have the freedom to make the rules they want. Imagine if you were forced to treat people with AIDS infected blood as the same as everyone else - there can be a place for discrimination against that, would anyone argue this is harmful? Such policies also kind of require that a government is strong enough to force institutions to be "free" as well, which is another interesting issue.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
So that's just tags. Like twitter hash tags or Instagram tags.
The problem with that form of moderation is you get people who feel to strongly for a certain topic.
For example, take the hashtag carnivorediet. On Instagram you get loads of vegans posting videos of animal abuse by farmers with that hash tag. To try to convert them or something. You end up with a dirty view. Its valuable but that's just twitter or Mastodon in the fediverse.
And that's what you would get if you did not allow moderation.
That type of grouping is really useful for news. But not for niche stuff.
squashkin@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
it's a double edged sword though, as you might get some kind of faction of people that end up banning related posts, like if a vegan takes over a vegetarian community and then bans content that's not vegan because that's the only "true vegetarianism" in their opinion
I like this approach though because then someone just makes another vegetarian community that isn't like that, but idk if anyone has solved the problem of like "domain squatting" as it applies to subreddits, I've wondered if it was possible to somehow have multiple communities with the same exact name or something but no one seems to have figured this out besides just allowing people to create unique names that are similar like "vegetarian, vegetarian1, vegetarian2" etc.
like one idea that comes to mind is multiple communities could exist that are c/vegetarian, but the top subscriber one or whatever comes up with a note at the top "did you mean this community" and you could click it and see the other c/vegetarian communities, maybe their URL would be vegetarian.1 as a redirect from c/vegetarian
like invidio.us but for community names
actually this system could work, if say someone has c/vegetarian and someone creates c/vegetarian2, they could signal that they want to be c/vegetarian so that there's a notice at the top of c/vegetarian that there are alternative vegetarian communities, this would allow for a dominant community to exist while also notifying visitors of alternatives in case the community is "squatted" and has bad mods that ban discussion
or a better example here might be c/communism which we could have a c/communism2 that discusses the ills of communism, which people are notified about existing at the top of c/communism
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
This works in Lemmy because you can have the same display name but different main name. People only see the display name.