> I'm thinking a modern Usenet would need something like ad blocker lists - volunteer run filter(s) that you choose to subscribe to.
This would be most useful if they're maintained per-category, by the people who frequent those categories. So then each filter list has "moderators" who can add stuff to it, the people who frequent a category usually subscribe to its most popular filter list, but nobody is required to.
Then because it's community-moderated and non-centralized you don't get the same problems with you do with email spam filtering where people will try to get their competitors' non-spam senders added to the global spam filter list.
Incentive is tough. You end up with a percentage of toxic moderators in people who are looking to fill a social need in their lives, burning themselves out "volunteering", or people looking for power or status and internet points. It's one of the cases where a steem like cryptocurrency could work to correct for the toxic incentives, but nobody's figured out how to make it work yet.
I think even in the cases where users hurt the experience, we tend to blame the higher org for not resolving the conflict. "There are people bullying on the platform" -> "Why doesn't Google get rid of the bullying behaviors?!" instead of "Why don't people stop bullying?"
I think we also have a tendency to take it to the next level, which is often government. If people are scamming me through Gmail, we can tend to not think it's the fault of the people scamming or of Gmail but of the government for not forcing Gmail to stop the scamming or the person from doing scamming directly.
So I appreciate you bringing the attention back down to the ground level. While I disagree in that it would be only the users, I believe they (we) contribute to the problems as well as Google and the government and many other entities.
Yeah I don’t mean to give megacorps a free pass either. I just think it’s in our nature to collectively ruin most things that start out great… and like you say, blame everyone else.
> So’s Reddit, though. I’ve become skeptical of the sort of people who volunteer to moderate.
This depends heavily on the sub.
And in this case you have an even better alternative to bad moderators. If they're bad on Reddit you can start your own sub but then you have to convince everyone there to move. With filter lists, you can start your own filter list for the same community and any subset of members can use it without having to fork the community itself. If you do a better job, yours will be more popular.
You can also potentially have filter lists by category. One is for true spam, i.e. commercial solicitation by for-profit entities and scammers. The other is for trolls and shitposters. You might think a moderator is overly aggressive in classifying things as trolls but still want the spam filtering, and then you can.
Agreed. Never giving power to anyone who wants power is usually the right choice.
I'd rather use a karma based moderation system, which works on the premise that the majority of people isn't made of trolls, spammers, scammers and the like.
This would be most useful if they're maintained per-category, by the people who frequent those categories. So then each filter list has "moderators" who can add stuff to it, the people who frequent a category usually subscribe to its most popular filter list, but nobody is required to.
Then because it's community-moderated and non-centralized you don't get the same problems with you do with email spam filtering where people will try to get their competitors' non-spam senders added to the global spam filter list.