When we use the web, every site on this web is centralized.
Where the administrators or moderators can delete, block, mute and other administrative...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I would never agree to this ever - and I say this as someone whose genuinely good content has been banned or removed more than once from social media. I very well understand why one might hate moderation, but it's necessary for platforms that allow users to generate content.
Almost every major computer scientist who have shaped the internet as we know it unanimously agree that blockchain's immutability would be a terrible use-case for any app that has user-generated content, and this would create an immense scope for abuse.
Much has been talked about how moderation is evil, about how admins are all these bad people who are constantly banning you. The cases of genuinely good content still being blocked by moderators are but a small fraction - what we fail to see is the vast majority of moderation working for the benefit of users by removing swathes of objectionable and offensive content, preventing abuse on a daily basis.
Here's an excellent video that dives deep into the problems that can potentially arise when you introduce immutability and lack of moderation - the worst possible combo for user generated content:
I don't think it is a small fraction.
Almost all moderators are evil as history tells us.
Even with democracy, administrators and moderators in real society can very easy to be evil. Let alone on a centralized web site administrators with unlimited power.
Almost all moderators are evil? 😳
Even dev.to has moderators who flag bad content, remove spam and copyrighted content. Despite what you might believe, this is what they are interested in doing. Are you suggesting the majority of them are evil?
Even if democracy or moderation was as bad as you say, the alternatives proposed need to be better. No moderation or 0 governance seems to me isn't a solution at all, it would just lead to anarchy.
If someone were to post private information of me on social media, I'd want that information that could potentially be misused against me by bullies, to be deleted. I'm interested to hear whether you have any solutions that address this problem without any moderation whatsoever.
bullies are equivalent to moderations. Centralization is almost the same to anarchy. But moderations(centralization) may kill the truth message, but bullies(decentralization) won't. In fact the humain history is a history on how to learn to overcome power centralization.
Your "want" of having
your informationinformation the spread of which you believe impacts you negatively may be a "nice to fulfill", but it is not fundamentally different from any other censorship.Human rights are continuously eroded under the motto of "Think of the
troopschildren!". This is no different.I am sorry there is information out there that's tragic for you, but removing it from popular platforms would not make it actually disappear. (Unless it was so uninteresting that truly no one has backups.)
Okay, let me try and unpack things a bit,
First off, I'm not talking about stuff that people find offensive or something that hurts my feelings. I'm talking about information on the internet that can cause real tangible harm (like your private photos being exposed, or your home address/phone number - these are just a few examples on the top of my head).
What if someone plagiarized your content or some copyrighted information? Should we expect all this to remain permanently visible on the internet? It might have been uploaded by someone else. Heck, you could have put it up yourself too, unknowingly. Or maybe you put it earlier but now you regret it. Except now there's no way to undo or it - if a mistake is made knowingly or unknowingly, it's etched on the platform forever.
If web3 enthusiasts claim that not only they're building the next generation of the internet, but that it will be better, then they absolutely need to account for these problems.
I've in-fact moved away from centralized blogging platforms like Medium to now writing on my own custom blog first. So rest assured that I am well aware of the negatives of too much centralization.
But in correcting for it, the solution isn't to swing the pendulum to the other extreme (i.e have 0 regulation, 0 laws, 0 moderation). We aren't living in a communistic utopia where people are all nice and good, so checks and balances will still need to be there. Otherwise, you might as well argue let's get rid of the police force and the constitution as we know it. Just like there are negatives in having too much moderation, there are negatives to having absolutely no moderation.
There are positives to having some centralisation - so much so that even web3 is inevitably moving towards centralisation. Marketplaces like OpenSea are effectively acting as authorities, deciding which NFTs are fraudulent and flagging them - and the artists from whom art work was stolen/plagiarized are more than grateful for it.
My content has also been removed in the past due to moderation. But however distasteful you and I find it, moderation in moderate amounts is the only way we know as of now that ensure that platforms with user-generated content don't inevitably descend into a cesspit of poor quality content, NSFW content, fake news & propaganda, to outright abuse & putting information that could potentially harm people. Quality and authenticity is what makes a digital platform valuable to people.
But of course, if you have a solution that accounts for and fixes all of the above with 0 moderation, I'm all ears. ☺️
The question is what is illegal? For the human history, telling the truth is often illegal. Men dies for pursuing turth.
Still a lot of people are taken into prisoners for just showing the truth.
Unfortunately your assuming is wrong.
web3 has nothing to do with d web:)
Free speech is limited to speech, which normally reflects a state of mind. Not we need no laws or rules.
And they can be easily fooled by moderators too.
What makes you think I haven't seen the casualties of the war on drugs yet?
And do you really think that smuggling "private" bridges to people in China and Russia is somehow a sustainable solution, with the menace growing day by day?
No, but mesh networking or at least decentralized content delivery becoming the default is the best bet of what might. I am not affiliated with the article author, so there's no need to bring up blockchains to me.
Not at all.
I was on irc in the 90's and saw what this looks like. Free speech is ok as long as it's not impersonal or anonymous. So, it's basically impossible to not be impersonal using computers where you aren't in the room with the person you're talking to. That idea will take off with hate groups though.
I think it’s useful for certain use cases. For example, if you have an important video you need the world to see, it would make sense to host it on ipfs or other decentralized services. Or if you want to chat with others and not have your discussions be censored, decentralization is necessary.
But, I do think centralized services are useful to help reduce the toxicity of online users. When you can’t easily delete content, it’s easy for abusive content to flood the internet.
I would agree that both centralized and decentralized web are needed. Both can cause problems, both have their value.
Centralized web are more efficient and cheap, while decentralized are slower and more expensive.
Centralized web can remove content easily, while decentralized can not simply remove contents user generated by others.
I meant technology does get adopted based on rhetoric alone, which is unfortunate.
However, I am lost in the reply thread. And also in the sauce.
Unfortunately, it does 🐴
I believe it is crucial, but I don't really see it happening right now.
I hope it will happen:)
Beyond the fact that we live in a world of Russia and China, do you really not believe that "illicit" drugs are a human right?