I don’t think you can, or should, do away with moderators. There needs to be a way to respond to illegal and abusive material quickly, before many people have to see it and it can propagate.
But I do think a good improvement would be improved transparency in moderator decisions, and accountability. It shouldn’t be that hard to implement a way for the community to remove and appoint moderators. The harder part would probably be safeguarding this mechanisms against trolls and hijackers.
You can also self host a “bitwarden” server that works with the official App if you wan to use the bitwarden pro features for free. It’s called vaultwarden
I run this. Can attest to its brilliance. Just want to point out though that its 2FA codes built in is inherently insecure. 2FA is meant as having multiple points of verification for enhanced security. By adding them all to Bitwarden you are again putting them all into a single point of verification / all eggs in 1 basket.
Fully decentralized, no censorship at the core of the system.
You pay a moderator to send you a filtered feed that filters out illegal content.
Then you upvote/downvote what you like and don't like. A local system looks at what other people upvoted and downvoted. People who upvoted/downvoted like you gain credibility people who upvoted/downvoted opposite you gain negative credibility. Then you get shown the content with the most credibility. And a little like pagerank, the credibility propagates, so people upvoted by others with high credibility will also have high credibility.
So, anyone can post anything to any subforum.
But in principle if you upvote/downvote posts based on whether they are appropriate to that subforum, then you'll only see posts that are appropriate for every subforum, because other users who upvote/downvote like you will also downvote off topic posts.
So you end up with the internet you vote for. If you downvote everyone that disagrees with you, you'll be in an echochamber. If you upvote does who disagree with you while making a good faith effort to bring up solid points, and you'll find yourself in an internet full of interesting and varied viewpoints.
You could also create different profile depending on what mood you're in.
Maybe you feel like reading meme so you use your memes profile where you only upvote funny memes and downvote everything else.
Or you're more feeling like serious discussions and you don't want to see meme so you use your serious discussions profile.
Social media, no. A group could be, but it would require HEAVY gatekeeping to keep out disagreeable individuals. Like in real life, I imagine a smaller commune can work out but not big ones without some rulership system.
a larger group can without issue be constituted solely out of smaller groups. And the larger group behave as if the smaller groups were individuals in a smaller group.
But isn’t modding essentially already Community-driven self-government? Nobody’s getting paid for being a mod right?(?) You can be a mod. Modding isn’t a “reward”, it’s a chore. Sure, some might exploit their position. But self-government here means that the community is then in charge of either taking the power back or creating a different community page. You are not bound to the mods. They don’t have power over you that you don’t give to them
That’s after you serve your two terms and essentially retire from politics that you don’t get involved. Trump very much wants to return, so he’s involved.
@BigBlackCockroach Have you heard of https://nostr.com/ ?
Should be of interest to you.
It's censorship resistant by design and you can get 100% censorship resistance by running your own relay (server which transfers the data between the clients).
It's a protocol, so all kinds of different applications can be implemented with it. Something like mastodon already exists.
Unfortunately political systems are often held together with “tradition” and “gentleman’s agreements”, where conventions dictate how people should behave. Politicians typically followed them because it is seen as the honourable and right thing to do.
However, it seems to be a recent trend among the hard right that politicians just ignore those conventions because:
a) those conventions are inconvenient b) honour means nothing to them, and c) nothing actually enforces those unwritten rules - so there are no consequences for ignoring them
Similar things have happened here in the UK as well. I guess our political systems both assume some degree of good will & trust in its representatives, and it generally turns out that trust is misplaced.
Yes I can. One of the prime ministers we had was convicted but abolished by the president. He was in a left oriented party, the president was in the same one. He didn’t retire from politics, he went on to become our prime minister.
One of the prime ministers we had was convicted but abolished by the president. He was in a left oriented party, the president was in the same one. He didn’t retire from politics, he went on to become our prime minister.
Só consigo pensar num país que se enquadra nessa descrição, sem realmente tentar procurá-lo. Se eu estiver correto, você tem razão, e estou retirando todos os meus votos negativos, lol
Unfortunately, that is so stripped down that it’s impossible to analyse it in any reasonable way. It sounds like more run-of-the-mill corruption rather than bucking tradition though. Corruption is a problem of humanity, rather than just one side. Though even that seems a lot more prevalent and egregious in the right, right now.
If you want the full story or details, PM me, I’ll disclose the names of the people and thus, the country I live in (which is what I’m trying to hide in this case).
I think it says a lot that your only example is either from a country so small that it would help dox you, or with other issues that would overshadow it.
I could, fairly trivially, locate multiple examples of right wing politicians abusing the traditions that support the country’s government. While my own has its issues, I’m not limited to it.
Considering the original post was focused on the US and their current problems, your original comment implied that it applied there. The fact you haven’t offered a single US based example is extremely telling.
The example was of the sort of corruption that affects politics everywhere, from a small country, not known for a lack of corruption. The example was also quite old. Predating trumps run at president.
No-one ever said that left wing politicians are perfect. They are far from it.
The issue is 2-fold. You’ve not shown an example of what was originally discussed (blatant breaking of tradition , with no justification other than “because we can”). It is more normal corruption that creeps into all political systems.
The second is the scale. It’s akin to comparing a school shooting, with dozens of fatalities, to a playground fistfight. Both are bad, but the scale is vastly different. Saying they should both be punished equally would be blatantly absurd.
The issue is 2-fold. You’ve not shown an example of what was originally discussed (blatant breaking of tradition , with no justification other than “because we can”). It is more normal corruption that creeps into all political systems.
That’s exactly what I’ve shown. He went on to be a prime minister after being convicted and then abolished by the president, because… well, he can.
Regarding the last paragraph, there are other examples regarding the same polititian (cover ups of a few unexplained murders while he was in office) which is the smoking gun you’re looking for. In the left’s defence, the right did things like this as well.
My standpoint is both sides are, excuse my French, dogshit. Everyone is looking in their best selfinterest, nothing more.
I didn’t really expect them to answer. 90% of the time you just get to watch them scuttle off to hide, like cockroaches from the light. 9% of the time you get soundbite diarrhea, which is easy to debunk.
The last 1% can be interesting however. A well thought out counter argument to something I believe. It is a good check, to make sure I’m not the one in the bubble. It also lets me understand those on the other side of a debate. It’s reached the point where 1% is being generous, however.
You make a great case for getting rid of implicit rules and making them explicit at least within the current political environment (I mean the resurgence of fascism and other inhuman currents)
Eh, the British “countries” are countries in name only. They don’t really fit any of the usual things people would think of as constituting a country.
In reality, they’re constituted like less than the state of a federation like the US, Germany, or Australia. A state has a constitutional right to its governance, and cedes some power to the federal government. The devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are rights granted by Westminster, and could be taken away at will. Nothing Biden, or Trump, or Mike Johnson wanted could ever take away Maine’s right to its own governance like that.
What the international law cares about is “sovereign states” or “sovereign subjects of international law” not countries which is a much more informal term. Sovereign states technically don’t even need a territory - 122 states have official diplomatic relations with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (not to be confused with the Republic of Malta) which has had no territory since 1799.
Nope, you just need to convince a hundred something control freaks on a power trip that you are one of them and that they should give you a bunch of privileges, including legal immunity. Easy.
A bit offtopic here, but how can I auto hide cookie prompts in uBlock? What I do is that I manually hide them with cosmetic filter, then I never have to worry about accepting them or not (kinda like I still don’t care about cookies extension)
The problem with anarchy is that 50% of people are below average intellect, Implementing the normal distribution, we can say that 30% of all people are dumb as fuck. Since we know that the wiser one yields, it is clear that the true power comes from the idiots, rendering it useless.
If you want to discuss anarchy let’s do that on an anarchy subLemmy. This is not a political post, even though I mentioned my political leanings, for the sake of full disclosure.
The question i am asking is technical: how to implement community self-governance.
Still, I think you're misundernderstaing what anarchy is. It is not the absence of people in positions of governance. It is the rejection of unwarranted/unjustified power positions. In that sense, if the community feels that a mod is something they want to, as other people have commented, keep the place clean, and as long as the mod can justify their work and what they do to the community, that is perfectly compatible with anarchism
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.