"A Billion Nazis at the Table" - The Fediverse model proves contextual moderation by real humans is both easy and affordable. The presence of Nazis on corporate social media implies at least a tacit a
"A Billion Nazis at the Table" - The Fediverse model proves contextual moderation by real humans is both easy and affordable. The presence of Nazis on corporate social media implies at least a tacit a
"If you’ve ever hosted a potluck and none of the guests were spouting antisemitic and/or authoritarian talking points, congratulations! You’ve achieved what some of the most valuable companies in the world claim is impossible."
You're viewing a single thread.
They claim it's impossible because they don't want to lose market share.
They didn't start treating women, black people, LGBT people, the disabled, and countless other minorities as human beings because they thought all human life has intrinsic value, they started treating them like humans because they realized they were leaving money on the table. They realized their profits could be even bigger if they hired people from these groups and aimed advertising at them, they could have everyone's money, not just white people's money.
Now that the real "silent majority" aren't a bunch of backwards fucking racists, companies try to act like they give a shit about various minority groups while really only caring to get the profits they can extract from those communities.
They understand that when they lose customers, those customers turn to other services to spend their money, with right wingers and white supremacists and authoritarians, that's running off to places like TruthSocial and Xitter.
This is the same thing, they don't value the lives of white supremacists, they value the money in their pockets, and as long as those people have money to spend, they will find excuses to keep taking their money.
The Fediverse easily sidesteps this problem by being volunteer and donation-based, meaning nobody is currently using it to sell to the biggest markets available.
The CEO of the company I used to work, used to say every time they talked about the inclusivity initiatives that they were not doing them because it was the moral thing to do, but because it was the thing that brings more returns to the company. Always found rare that he was so honest with that.
Yep, it's really as simple as "Why have a handful of markets, when we can have all the markets." It's so odd how it's a combination of abject greed and total disdain for things like inclusivity, but they back it because money.
In general they are the same thing. In the broadest terms, what's seen as moral is what society as a whole approves. By definition, some are early adopters and some are late adopters.
By definition, some are early adopters and some are late adopters.
Sociologists even have a term "moral entrepreneur" which means a person or group that leads the adoption of a new moral norm in society.
Partially agree
It really is about the will to take a hard stance. Just look at twitch. You have hundred-ish concurrent channels with two or three volunteer mods who can't handle "the memes". And then you have stuff like (in their prime) Geek and Sundry where you had very attractive hosts outright making sex and bondage jokes and chat was pleasant. Because the automod settings would nuke any comment that included key words and mods would add the cheeky mispellings as they show up.
It really does boil down to wanting the audience. Numbers mean money. Money is good. If you get rid of the chuds, your numbers go down. So you try to "manage" them and only remove the "problematic" users. Until the overton window shifts and you try to ignore all the dog whistles.
Where I disagree is that the fediverse is any better. Lemmy.world is already an example of one instance getting big enough that it has a LOT of influence. And they (as well as other instances) have already had their bursts of mods (and admins...) going batshit insane like it is a vbulletin board in the 00s.
But also? We are seeing the same bullshit we see everywhere. A "good" example is Naomi Wu. She has been in the news cycles periodically because of all the "best" reasons (she is clearly being silenced by the CCP, a lot of "maker youtube" is shouting her out as an OG a result, she had the audacity to speak out about a prominent youtuber who recently imploded making her uncomfortable for the exact reasons said youtuber imploded, she has boobs and doesn't wear a burkha, etc). And I can attest to three of the prominent boards having moderators who think they are doing a good job by removing any mention of that because it "makes people angry" or "doesn't lead to good discussion". Can't acknowledge someone who actually influenced a lot of the design philosophies in the 3d printers we all use on a 3d printing board because the chuds will get mad. And so forth
And THAT is the problem. Mods and Admins will decide they want to be influential and want those giant audiences.
You make a fair point, but the difference here is that we can always just go to a new instance that is more desirable. Mods and admins can power trip, but only within their own domain.
And defederation is always an option
Yeah. People should have a right to speak their mind, but on the Fediverse nobody is forced to listen and therein lies the difference, IMO.
Most instances aren't going to defederate from the vast majority of the userbase. The various "we aren't even going to pretend she is a 9000 year old vampire" instances are easy to defederate from because its almost nobody. But if 80% of the userbase will be lost to get rid of all the dog whistling? I mean... look at twitter. People will spin their refusal to walk away as an act of defiance and heroism.
And you get that massive userbase by not being strict regarding hate and bigotry.