[betwixthewires]

But this is historically inaccurate. The issue of forums becoming hateful echo chambers is a new phenomenon, not a time tested one. Digg wasn't a terrible hateful echo chamber, reddit was not, most topic oriented forums are not, lots of alternative sites springing up nowadays are not, Facebook, MySpace, the list goes on.

No, the phenomenon that lasted really only a few years was due to the fact that the first Diasporas kicked off of those sites (or that left due to crack downs on their expression) were existing hateful communities. There's a name for the effect that I can't quite remember, but basically new communities are unsavory at first because they're made up of the unsavory characters that are unwelcome at the other communities, and this prevents their growth.

Thankfully we are currently seeing that effect wind down as well. With the increase in moderation beyond plainly hateful content, now to anything a site deems unlikeable, you're seeing those Diasporas become less and less unsavory and more mainstream sets of ideas are being discussed on the newer forums.

I regard articles like the one you linked as yellow journalism, designed to discredit people's desire to collect and discuss ideas online, freely, and argue in favor of places where ideas cannot be discussed freely. If there is any one thing that causes sites to become hateful, it is the need for the site to promote "engaging" content for as profit, something you are less likely to see on newer sites with less commercial pressure.

[nemothekid]

>Digg wasn't a terrible hateful echo chamber, reddit was not, most topic oriented forums are not

Those platforms, from the topic oriented platforms, to digg & reddit all stressed moderation. What's new is this idea that any sort of moderation is an infringement of free speech and content platforms should moderate as little as possible. Moderation used to be far stricter when platforms were smaller.

[betwixthewires]

It's not that any sort of moderation is an attack on free speech. It is that the meaning of the word "moderation" is being stretched and warped. When those sites began, moderation was removing illegal content (illegal in the US), and community moderation was ensuring on topic discussion. You could essentially say whatever you felt like, and those places didn't devolve into cesspools of hate.

Nowadays even on topic discussion and critical and informed discussion of controversial topics is "moderated". In some communities it is so bad that even by the letter on topic discussion that deviates from some community orthodoxy is removed. Worse still, in a lot of cases groups of moderators share lists of people to crusade against.

The problem I have is that the old, actual definition of moderation is used to show how productive communities can exist, and then that is given as an justification for this new form of suppressive moderation that does not produce productive discussion.

The distinction must be made between moderation and control of narratives. You might not want to call it censorship because it isn't a government doing it, but it isn't the same as what internet perusers have always referred to when we use the word " moderation".

[croon]

The only thing that's new is that 30 years ago it wasn't considered noteworthy to ban trolls/loudmouths/nazis. But those people weren't elected president either, so there's that.

If you think platform moderation has changed, I think you're better off looking at public figure discourse/debates/pundits 30 years ago and compare it to now.

That's what's changed. Moderation is honestly much lighter now, it's just the noise that's a lot higher.

[croon]

I've been around since BBS:es, and I can tell you that the success in avoiding hateful cesspools was very much linked to heavy moderation. The internet isn't very old in the grand scheme of things, but what you call "historically inaccurate" has been accurate for as long as there's been people on the internet.