The point was that it's not true that tight regulation and peer review results in maintaining a high level of critical thinking. In fact, it would appear that high levels of critical thinking occur despite of and not because of high levels of moderation.
The non-linear relationship between regulation and critical thinking is not a black-or-white "despite of" versus "because of". Critical thinking in a community benefits from rigorous regulation, and suffers from excessive regulation.
Arxiv's focus of course was to speed up the publishing cycle and not so much to replace the bloated bureaucracy of the publishing industry. It's just an example to illustrate much the same purpose can be served with far less regulation.
I agree that academic publishers need improvement.
However, arXiv's focus is not to replace Elsevier because they serve different purposes. The second sentence of the arXiv homepage warns you as much: "Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv." Emphasis mine.
This means that the tight regulation, and TOS in Facebook and YouTube's case, is unnecessary regarding critical thinking and content quality control
The Terms of Services of Facebook and YouTube are less tight than arXiv. Let me quote the entirety of the paragraph pertaining to "refereeable by a conventional publication venue":
Unrefereeable content. arXiv only accepts submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue. Papers that do not contain original or substantive research, including undergraduate research, course projects, and research proposals, news, or information about political causes (even those with potential special interest to the academic community) may be removed. Papers that contain inflammatory or fictitious content, papers that use highly dramatic and misrepresentative titles/abstracts/introductions, or papers in need of significant review and revision may be removed.
None of the content you usually see on Facebook meets this standard. If you hold arXiv to be the best critical thinking community among Elsevier, arXiv, Facebook, and Gab, then you have to think about why arXiv with tighter regulation is better than Facebook.
It's still early days, though, and it's a matter of time before more quality content creators migrate to the alt-tech world due to the overly strict TOS guidelines of the Big Tech.
You cannot hand-wave it with "early days". The "early days" and the seed members are what forms and defines a community. "A matter of time" means a major trend. I do not observe any major trend towards the like of Gab. Instead, creators go to Medium, Substack, Patreon, YouTube Original. For that matter, creators come to dev.to, with a code of conduct.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
The non-linear relationship between regulation and critical thinking is not a black-or-white "despite of" versus "because of". Critical thinking in a community benefits from rigorous regulation, and suffers from excessive regulation.
I agree that academic publishers need improvement.
However, arXiv's focus is not to replace Elsevier because they serve different purposes. The second sentence of the arXiv homepage warns you as much: "Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv." Emphasis mine.
The Terms of Services of Facebook and YouTube are less tight than arXiv. Let me quote the entirety of the paragraph pertaining to "refereeable by a conventional publication venue":
None of the content you usually see on Facebook meets this standard. If you hold arXiv to be the best critical thinking community among Elsevier, arXiv, Facebook, and Gab, then you have to think about why arXiv with tighter regulation is better than Facebook.
You cannot hand-wave it with "early days". The "early days" and the seed members are what forms and defines a community. "A matter of time" means a major trend. I do not observe any major trend towards the like of Gab. Instead, creators go to Medium, Substack, Patreon, YouTube Original. For that matter, creators come to dev.to, with a code of conduct.