Conversation
Notices
-
the cool thing about gnusocial is that we can have both "freedom" and moderation at the same time
- mcscx repeated this.
-
it's difficult to think outside the sevice provide-customer relation. people are used to "demanding" and "protesting" instead of acting
-
quitter is acting. we perform a different way of being that is radically different from being a customer/worker on a commercial platform
-
gnusocial is not a technocratic invention that "lets" people say anything, it's a tool for socializing, organizing, taking the power back!
-
i don't believe in technical "solutions" that will automatically free the people. that's why i'm not interested in e.g. #twister.
-
another thing that doesn't interest me is nomadic identities. to me that represent a service provider-customer type of mindset
-
it represent a mentality where users will search for the best service provider instead of trying to improve the community
-
@hannes2peer I kind of like P2P I just think it is too hard to use
-
@hannes2peer This is very closely related to "voting with one's wallet," even though communities have little to do with businesses.
-
@hannes2peer People are so used to only dealing with businesses and are "too busy" to help improve their communities.
-
@taknamay i love p2p, but "p2p with a conscience" :)
-
@hannes2peer yeah, like if bitmessage chans could be moderated by the one who created it first
-
Freedom and moderation are not incompatible.
You need the last if you want to enjoy the first. If nobody gives moderation for protect your rights or anyone else's rights, how are we going to be free?
Every society or any social space needs moderation, because it needs “nomos” (normativity). They also need institutions for consolidate the normative effectivity. Human rights are “nomos” (normativity). Without human rights there is not real freedom.
Example: if a moderator don't let you post nazi propaganda is because he/her is protecting human rights, and, in consequence, is protecting everybody's freedom.
