Comment on If power corrupts, or power attracts the corrupt, why do we have moderators?
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 11 months agoThe 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 11 months 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 11 months 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 11 months 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.
cameron_vale@lemm.ee 11 months ago
For older bigots you would filter them away.
For brand new bigots. That might require a “if the person’s vote history is too small, exclude” type rule. Which is less than ideal, yes. Lots of false positives there.