That's the fundamental problem.
The federated social web, as it exists, points at a *portion* of the solution. But not enough. In many ways, it has borrowed centralized assumptions.
That's why I've been in research mode with @spritelyproject. I think we now have the answers.
I've been working with Randy Farmer (who has been doing this stuff for a long time) on better explaining the ideas. I look forward to sharing what we've been working on.
In code, I have more these days prototyped, but not enough that sit in users' hands. Working on it...
@cwebber I'll rewrite the thing I posted to twitter here.
The sociologist Zeynep Tufekci argued that good moderation requires human judgment and culturally specific knowledge. (At the very least speaking the language)
The big companies in their goals to scale as large as possible, with as few costs as possible keep trying to use AI our outsourcing the work to the users to avoid having to pay for large teams of language specific moderators.
@alienghic and I'll repost what I said there, but better (compressed between two posts):
Fully true, but the solution isn't in convincing central players to pay for more moderators, but to restructure. More soon.
@cwebber perhaps the biggest thing that helped early Mastodon was that it could be run with moderation policies different from what unlimited speech Californian's want.
Apparently some of the early big Japanese mastodon servers were popular because Japan has a different opinion about how bad sexualized drawings of underaged people are than the USA. (I don't really want to see those drawings but can agree they are ethically fuzzier)
A universal service can't apply culturally specific policies
Which points to a way forward: https://www.draketo.de/software/decentralized-moderation
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!