[colllectorof]

Yes. Communication software that can be set up by anyone with some technical skill is bad. Communication software run by centralized corporations is good. No drama possible when your entire chat system can be nuked with a press of a button from some anonymous "moderator".

[simcop2387]

It's more that ease of setting up a new community makes the network effect nearly negligible which mitigates a large amount of the personnel issues that usually crop up when it takes more capital to get something going. It's really got very little to do with the centralization or corporation backing it directly.

[simias]

We'll see about that whenever Discord wants to cleanup their act for a buyout/IPO/advertiser/whatever and they start banning things that are not corporate-friendly.

Many internet users sure love complaining about "muh free speech" post-facto when they're more than happy to buy into closed ecosystems in the first place.

This is not aimed at you personally by the way, I'm just always frustrated to see this pattern repeating itself year after year and yet users keep hoping to new proprietary platforms. "No but we swear it's different this time you guys!!".

[lmm]

Well, there really isn't, because the moderators are so far away from the day-to-day conflicts. Rather like how living under a distant emperor and his unaccountable mandarins tends to mean less day-to-day drama than living in the wild west, where it's easy to attract the attention of the local big man.

[alisonkisk]

You missed the point completely. The issue is that it requires tech skills instead of being accessible to everyone, so those techies can, as you say "nuke" people.

[emteycz]

I don't think ISPs care at all about this. They care about the health of their networks.