sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 10 months ago
Everyone will have a different opinion, but US jurisprudence prior to section 230 of the CDA basically asks the question "Are you willing to take on responsibility for everything you host?" If the answer is yes, then you should be openly trying to moderate everything. If not, then you should just have an open platform for the most part.
Might just be the old internet guy in me but I think I prefer that way of looking at the world.
jgaehring@social.coop 10 months ago
@sj_zero There are so many layers to the question. But I guess another way of looking at it is, between the individual user operating their own hard-/soft-ware at one pole, and state-enforced regulations and int'l treaty at the other pole, what forms of collective governing bodies can we form to make the fediverse, or just one instance, the kind of social setting we wish it to be?
I say this from a cooperatively governed instance w/ ~500 active users.
sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 10 months ago
I tend to think that it's the diversity that makes it worthwhile. Some people are going to want just one user operating their own hardware and software, some people are going to want to build communities that are lightly moderated, other people are going to want to build communities that are heavily moderated, and what gets moderated and why will be quite different.
I know "Web 3.0" is supposed to refer to crypto stuff, but I think the real web 3.0 is this -- different communities connecting together (or not, such as the case may be) and no centralized governance to speak of besides that which each community wants to apply. I mean, how cool is it that you and I are talking on completely different software platforms through a community intermediate that's a third completely different software platform?
I guess the real question is about something that's as monolithic as bluesky, but you can already connect with platforms like minds and it's just another type of community.