The same analysis makes it untenable for centralized platforms, as you noticed yourself.
Strong disagree, though I certainly hope that I am wrong and that decentralized platforms are more viable than I suspect.It is not easy, but it is most definitely tenable for centralized platforms with sufficient funding and motivation i.e. Facebook, Google, etc. They have: 1. Many millions (billions, in Facebook's case) of users, some percentage of which are willing to click those "Report..." buttons 2. Their own farms of in-house workers 3. Their own bespoke tools and heuristics to identify trends and more easily identify malicious actors/content, for review by the human moderators. this would presumably incorporate reports from users. It's arguably harder to do it on a decentralized platforms
Again, I really can't agree but hope to be wrong.How does a malicious social media team "attack" Facebook? For the most part, they produce content that winds up being spread virally. They don't spead the information around Facebook; the users do. This would function largely the same way in a decentralized network. Keep in mind that today's decentralized networks are a bit like the Usenet was before "Eternal September." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September In other words, these decentralized networks are currently populated primarily with relatively savvy users. Not perfect by any means, but on average, more savvy than your average FB or Twitter user who will eagerly share articles and links without even a cursory vetting. That will change in a hurry if any of these decentralized networks ever gains critical mainstream mass. |