[handoflixue]

> if you restrict moderation to stuff like gore and porn, then you don't need that many moderators.

Have you ever been involved with moderating even a small subreddit or Discord server? I'm on a server with one moderator and it routinely gets spammed while the guy is asleep.

> can't people just unfollow or block others whose opinions they don't want to see?

How do I block people BEFORE seeing the opinions I don't want to see? Trolls can roll up a new account for every single post they make, if they want to.

> there is no obligation to refute bullshit to begin with.

No, but if you're neither blocking nor refuting it, then your community is going to quickly become majority bullshit.

[raffael_de]

it seems to me that the networking design is flawed. just to give a simple example: whitelisting (only seeing content of friends and followees) versus blacklisting (seeing everything ranked by an algorithm). wouldn't whitelisting already solve most of those issues? that would actually be my preferred modus anyway.

[Arainach]

No, because that puts the effort of fighting bad actors on everyone. It means that every day you have new trolls spewing hate in your comments, and that your users have to constantly keep blocking trolls who follow them (and who recruit other trolls to join them) until they get tired and leave the platform.

This isn't an academic debate, we've been seeing this play out online for at least 30 years. Probably longer - I wasn't around for Usenet's heyday but it wasn't immune either.

[scoofy]

I feel like a simple reverse-recommendation algorithm could fulfill the role of auto blocking content.

“It looks like you hated that Nickleback song! You’ll probably also hate this Chad Kroeger solo project!”

[GOD_Over_Djinn]

You would see comments from random trolls under a whitelist model. You would only see stuff from your friends.

[Arainach]

"friends and followees"

Only allowing posts between mutual friends is instant messaging, not a social network. Discovery, engagement, and platform growth comes from people wanting to hear from and interact with followers who they don't necessarily follow themselves.

[raffael_de]

i think you are trying to solve a problem that in my opinion should just be skipped. i don't want to be part of a social network where some algo decides what i see. all i care about is what my friends do and maybe the friends of my friends. and that's it. that was the golden era of social networks, when precisely this was just the norm until they discovered that they can make more money by messing with the feed. no incentive to mess with the feed is what i'd expect from a non-commercial solution like the fediverse. or - at least allow for configuring my feed. if somebody wants to be exposed to all sorts of people - do it. i don't.

[Arainach]

That may work for you, but it does not work for anyone running a platform and dealing with the needs of all users. That requires real moderation for both legal and practical purposes, as previously described.

[handoflixue]

> all i care about is what my friends do and maybe the friends of my friends. and that's it.

Genuine question, then: why are you here, in the Hacker News comments section?

[GOD_Over_Djinn]

None of the things that you listed are stated goals of fediverse networks. In fact, they explicitly avoid them.