[maeil]

> “I think there’s a real social media fatalism that has set in, that it’s just irredeemably toxic and never going to get any better,” Pariser said. “The goal here is to demonstrate that local conversations don’t have to be toxic. That’s a result of the business model and how they’re designed.”

I've been preaching this for years and am delighted to see the existence of such a great social network that provides a brilliant example of how true this is.

The Meta-Alphabet-and-friends concept that "it's simply impossible to moderate once you reach a certain scale" is a bald-faced lie. It both serves as an excuse for them not doing so, and as a warning to founders to definitely not build a competing social network because it must turn into a cesspit.

It's very possible to keep a social network high quality - the big ones just don't want to. And they don't want you to, either.

[infotainment]

Agreed, and I think HN is one of the best examples of a properly moderated social site, and it does so without crushing dissenting opinions (See: random subreddit mods on a power trip). I like that you can generally see a range of opinions on HN that would get downvoted into oblivion or deleted outright on other sites.

Good moderation, IMO, should aim to punish behaviors, not opinions, which ultimately results in a healthy discussion that isn't just an echo chamber. Unfortunately, this is rather difficult to do without human moderation, and so Meta and friends would much rather just pretend it's unsolvable because they don't want to pay mods.

[immibis]

Nazis can learn to be polite if that's what keeps them on a platform, but they're still Nazis. If someone says "Respectfully, I must disagree that Jews are equal to others" they should still be banned.