I'm not sure where exactly you think my idea fails.
I didn't say to expect they'll behave like grownups in that they wont post anything immature, bad, etc. I said "treat people as grownups", that is, as capable on seeing something they don't like or find offensive or whatever. And if they're not capable, that's on them.
So, if a discussion becomes a flamewar with "thousands of posts", so be it. Members can always ignore it.
So, if the thousands of posts are from the same small number people (over-posting) and others find those annoying, then can chose to invidividually to ban them, or snooze them, or not.
But, if the thousands of posts are by thousants of members (and not bots), then why shouldn't they be left to continue to post and discuss this way, even if its a flame war? They're having fun, and others can ignore or ban them.
Now, if they verbally abuse someone though (e.g. threaten their life, dox them, and such), well, that could be moderated and members who do that could be banned. The rest of opinion, whether deemed controversial, unpopular, misinformation, or bullshit, can stay.
I don't care much about "Brandolini's law". Who is the arbiter of what's bullshit and why are they? The moderator? Well, that's tautological (they're arbiter of non-bullshit merely because they have the power to moderate).
The problem you have here is one of physics. You as a human exist only because of a staggeringly massive number of filters that have allowed you to pass (at least from a non-theist view). Brandolini's law applied to evolution is Darwinism. Simply put, if you focused on bullshit rather than survival you were dead.
Coming back to computer physics, simply put we don't have access to unlimited energy and storage space. I can generate trash faster than you can install servers to keep it, and much faster than anyone can afford to pay for the space. Companies that do not control spam simply go out of business, industrial Darwinism.
You can ignore physics as much as you want, but it's not ignoring you.
>Simply put, if you focused on bullshit rather than survival you were dead.
Which is neither here, nor there, as the stakes in a discussion forum or media are not "survival". Nor is the danger from something you don't like (or tons of them) life threatening.
>Coming back to computer physics, simply put we don't have access to unlimited energy and storage space. I can generate trash faster than you can install servers to keep it,
Again, neither here nor there. That is about spam, our subject is moderation. Gmail, for example, also has spam filters, but we don't consider it moderation...
>as the stakes in a discussion forum or media are not "survival".
I mean, as discussion forms commonly dox people, or brigade and convince members to go kill people IRL I really think maybe you're incorrect.
>Gmail, for example, also has spam filters, but we don't consider it moderation...
We whom? This has been debated on HN for as long as HN existed. Most would consider it moderation, but seemingly as a whole we have given up the battle as spammers are a plague of locust that will consume all.
>Again, neither here nor there.
Handwaves away physics, good way to accept technical reality of the situation here.
>I mean, as discussion forms commonly dox people, or brigade and convince members to go kill people IRL I really think maybe you're incorrect.
Yeah, but I covered that: "Now, if they verbally abuse someone though (e.g. threaten their life, dox them, and such), well, that could be moderated and members who do that could be banned. The rest of opinion, whether deemed controversial, unpopular, misinformation, or bullshit, can stay."
>We whom? This has been debated on HN for as long as HN existed. Most would consider it moderation
Has it? I'm here for almost as long as HN existed, and I don't remember this being debated. It might have been debated a couple of times in 15 or more years, but it's not like it's some common HN discussion.
I also doubt "most" would consider spam the same issue as the kind of moderation we're talkin about, or that even enough people think it's the same kind of thing as moderation of ideas and opinions and such. In fact, I'd go on to say that people who care for free speech still want spam filters - and don't view this as contradictory or care about the latter.
I didn't say to expect they'll behave like grownups in that they wont post anything immature, bad, etc. I said "treat people as grownups", that is, as capable on seeing something they don't like or find offensive or whatever. And if they're not capable, that's on them.
So, if a discussion becomes a flamewar with "thousands of posts", so be it. Members can always ignore it.
So, if the thousands of posts are from the same small number people (over-posting) and others find those annoying, then can chose to invidividually to ban them, or snooze them, or not.
But, if the thousands of posts are by thousants of members (and not bots), then why shouldn't they be left to continue to post and discuss this way, even if its a flame war? They're having fun, and others can ignore or ban them.
Now, if they verbally abuse someone though (e.g. threaten their life, dox them, and such), well, that could be moderated and members who do that could be banned. The rest of opinion, whether deemed controversial, unpopular, misinformation, or bullshit, can stay.
I don't care much about "Brandolini's law". Who is the arbiter of what's bullshit and why are they? The moderator? Well, that's tautological (they're arbiter of non-bullshit merely because they have the power to moderate).