Comment on If power corrupts, or power attracts the corrupt, why do we have moderators?
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year agoThat just means that folk from vulnerable minorities each individually have to downvote every new troll account targetting them, until the person just moves on to a new troll account.
Which in turn is how you end up with communities full of nothing but white, middle class western men who think that trolling each other is a national sport.
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The cracking-resistance of this system is in the voters who are smart enough to vote as they like (flatworms can do it, so can we) and the depth and complexity of an organic voter/votee history, which would be hard to fake or quickly synthesize.
Of course, yes, the proof requires pudding. A Lemmy fork? Ugh, it’s a lot of work. Maybe a friendly hs teacher can make it the class project.
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
You miss the point. Your approach requires the targetted minority to experience the hate first, and then react to it, and gives them no method of pro-actively avoiding the content in the first place.
That suits bigots fine, and unsurprisingly, isn’t sustainable for many targets of bigotry.
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That isn’t so. There is vote propagation among peers.
If a trusted (upvoted) peer or peers downvotes a bigot then you will see those bigots downvoted in your own perspective as well.
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
You still see it though, especially if it’s a direct reply. And it is still a responsive system, that lets bigots just come back with new accounts and spew hate until they get downvoted in to silence, when they just come back with another account.
Whilst the latter problem still exists even with moderators, at least a moderator can reduce the number of people exposed to hate.
I’ve lived this. I have zero desire to use the system you describe, because I know it leads to toxicity that I don’t need.