zlacker

I agree with the spirit, but I think we have to consider the structure.

>> Give me the tools that the moderators have

Whatever tools a site like twitter or youtube gives you, (A) most people will never use them and (B) they still control how the tools work. These two are enough to achieve any censorship goal you might have, and enough to make censorship inevitable.

I don't think we get power to the people while Alphabet/Elon/Whatnot own the platform. It's a shame that FOSS failed on these fronts. But, the internet has produced powerful proofs of concept. The WWW itself, for the first 20 years. Wikipedia. Linux/gnu. Those really did give power to the people, and you can see how much better they were at dealing with censorship, disinformation and other 2020s infopolitics.

>>dalbas+(OP)
Wikipedia is a terrible example for the "zero censorship" crowd because stuff gets deleted or locked all the time. It's an example of how you can produce something useful despite a raging ideological battleground over all sorts of topics.

>>dalbas+(OP)
I agree. If Twitter reopened its API (properly) then "userland" moderation tools would (could) be easier to implement and that might tackle this problem.

>>pjc50+A5
I didn't say "zero censorship." I don't even know what that means for an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia have a model for user generated content. It's much more resilient, open, unbiased and successful than social media. This isn't because they have some super nuanced, single-us distinction between moderation and censorship. They never really needed to split that hair.

They have a model for collaboratively editing an encyclopedia, including lots of details and special cases that deal with disagreement, discontent and ideological battlegrounds.

They also have a different organisational and power structure. Wikipedia doesn't exist to sell ads, or some other purpose above the creation of an encyclopedia. Users/editors have a lot of power. Things happen in the open.

Between those two, they've done much better than Alphabet/FB/Twitter/etc. Wikipedia is the ultimate prize for censorship, narrative wars, disinformation, campaigning, activism and such. Despite this, and despite far fewer resources it outperforms the commercial platforms. I don't think it's a coincidence.

>>dalbas+Qh
I can point to particular pages that have failed in providing an accurate representation of the subject and are under the control of activists or interested groups.

I also get a bit tired of looking someone up and it has "so and so says this person is <insert bad thing>", claims that usually stack up about as well as that SPLC claim against Maajid Nawaz[1] did.

Given this, I find it hard to see how they're doing better than the other companies you mention.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majid_Nawaz#Claim_by_Southern_...