MY THOUGHTS

The person who posted would be the moderator for that post.

It would eliminate the problem of multiple places to post the same subject matter.

The post would have tags (ex : ask lemmy, meditation, gardening …), which would simplify crossposting. The post would be searched for like that.

There would be no communities.

It would make moderation much easier

It would be democratic. If you don't like the way the conversation is being managed then go to or create another. It would be fewer clicks than creating your own community or creating your own lemmy instance.

GOOGLE AI'S THOUGHTS

Assigning moderation power by post (making the author the moderator) would prioritize personal control over content, akin to managing a comment section, but would likely cause chaos on platforms designed for community discussion. While it gives creators absolute control over replies, it risks high abuse, lack of impartial enforcement, and fragmented, unmanageable communities.

Pros: The original poster (OP) could instantly delete spam, trolling, or off-topic replies, ensuring the conversation stays true to their original intent. It empowers creators to manage their own space.
Cons:
Abuse of Power: Creators could delete valid criticism, dissenting opinions, or corrections, creating echo chambers.
Lack of Uniformity: Rules would change from post to post, making the platform unpredictable for users.
Responsibility Overload: The burden of moderation is shifted to individuals, many of whom may not want the responsibility, leading to either total lack of moderation or over-moderation.
Fragmentation: Community-wide standards (e.g., hate speech policies) would be difficult to enforce consistently if every post has a different, arbitrary moderator.

This model is similar to how a Facebook post's author can manage comments, but it is generally ill-suited for forums like Reddit or Reddit-like structures, where community moderators (mods) maintain consistent rules for a shared space.

The person who posted would be the moderator for that post.

In theory a moderator is expected to be neutral in regard to what is being posted/shared (be ok with conflicting opinions, for example, even ones that completely oppose the OP). At least, in theory.

Someone posting something will seldom feel neutral regarding what they just posted.

The danger of a poster being less neutral than a moderator seems small to me.

I think the advantages outweigh that danger.

I don't think that's a good parallel. There is no crook or trial here.

The danger of a poster being less neutral than a moderator seems small to me.

Imagine this: I disagree with your reply (not saying I do, just pretend I do), and since I'm also its moderator, I simply delete it (and if you repost it I block or ban you. And that would just be me not liking someone daring contradict my own little comment.

More seriously, I think this would be a real huge source of trouble: people IRL already have a hard time to stand critics. That's worse online.

I have had moderators of communities do the same. For the same reason.

Community moderator abuse is common and notorious.

By my system, it would be easier to handle a bad moderator

And there are other advantages too

I see your point. But I don't think that a community moderator is necessarily any better. And my system makes handling bad moderators easier.

What happens when someone posts CSAM?

If the moderators of a community are bad, you can leave or boycott that community. Nice and straightforward, easily understood, and unambiguous. Also exactly in line with how content is chosen on topic-focused social media like Lemmy or Reddit.

If you would prefer person focused social media like Facebook, Tumblr, Mastadon, and BlueSky, by all means use them!

Yes, I know how one deals with bad moderators in lemmy. Mine is easier.

Also, my system makes moderation easier. Which makes for better moderators.

Mine handles directing conversations to topics better too. Specifically, there wouldn't be multiple places to post the same topic post and crossposting is trivial.

I don't know. I haven't thought out every detail yet.

But what you're actually asking me is "how do we censor stuff?"

Why don't you ask Google's AI?

I might.

But ya, jumping right to "how do I censor" in distasteful. I'm focusing on making good conversations first.

You deleted your other post because you didn't like the critical comments, and you're still crying about censorship?

Use an AI to prove something is a fallacy, it's supposed that you say something and we discuss about, no start the topic with "AI is with me, so I should be right". We don't even know if you asked the AI to agree with you.

The person who posted would be the moderator for that post.

It would eliminate the problem of multiple places to post the same subject matter.

The post would have tags (ex : ask lemmy, meditation, gardening …), which would simplify crossposting. The post would be searched for like that.

It sounds like what you want is microblogs. All of the functionality you're asking for exists on the microblog side of the Fediverse.

Post to your account instead of specific communities on whatever topic you want and tag it based on how you want people to search for it.

Thank you very much. I didn't know this exists. I will check it out.

Having good discussions is great, and it's nice that you've tried to start one here (I think). I don't despise the concept, but it all falls apart when someone will inevitably posts something vile, hateful, bigoted, or otherwise _illegal and reprehensible (i.e., child porn) to this hypothetical service. You need someone to moderate that and be able to delete the content and report to authorities when necessary.

I'm not proving anything.

I think I responded to those other comments quite intelligently. They did not reply.

My post was removed by the moderators for breaking rule 3. That may have something to do with their not replying.

You should mind your manners.

Yes I see how that's a bad thing. Nonetheless.

I haven't bought into the paranoia yet.

I like your idea, maybe not in execution, but I like that you asked the question and are responding to people's thoughts on it. Some people are being unnecessarily rude toward what is, at worst, a thought experiment. It's not like you run a big Lemmy instance and have the power to implement this.

So while we're all just bullshitting around the table here, I like the idea. Regarding mod abuse by OPs, I would say that if someone does it a lot, people would just block them and they would be creating echo chambers with fewer and fewer quality users responding. They would defeat themselves over time. I think the better solution would be to let OPs have greater say in what happens in their thread, but the final say falls to a moderator.

Seeing as how a community can be achieved with just a tag and a search engine, one could argue that the only reason we have communities here (built into the structure of Lemmy with official moderators and such) is to make the job of monitoring and censoring us easier.

This would be a really bad idea. The poster may not align with the views of the community. While the selection of community moderators aren't the best, they are better than randos who come in to shitpost loudly.

...The poster may not align with the views of the community...

In other words, censorship would become more difficult.

Also, there wouldn't be "communities".

While the selection of community moderators aren't the best, they are better than randos who come in to shitpost loudly.

Moderators can be randos too. It isn't like there's a vetting process.

It's more important to have an easy way to navigate between moderators than to have good moderators.

Yes, I know how one deals with bad moderators in lemmy.

No you don't:

No really, I do. The problem is that when you leave it isn't just the moderator that you leave, it's the entire community. That is a defect in Lemmy.

It's like having a hot gf with really bad body odor. If you want the hot gf then you'll have to put up with the stink.

Doesn’t sound ideal.

Moderated communities allow topics to stay on track and fit the theme of a community. It allows you to find different comms if you don’t agree with how one is being run.

By reducing it to tags, you risk topics getting flooded with irrelevant things or bad takes, meanwhile OPs get to ensure no one in the comment can argue against whatever bad take they might make.

Basically is makes the experience worse for every other user by cluttering feeds and promoting biased moderation.

So a trans community has to accept a post where someone says all teams people should die?

A Linux community has to accept a post that Windows is actually great?

Moderated communities allow topics to stay on track and fit the theme of a community.

Consistent community themes don't interest me. Good conversations do. I think this is a common preference.

It allows you to find different comms if you don’t agree with how one is being run.

My system would achieve the same, but easier. Because it's easier to post or go to a different post than to go to a different community or create your own community. Also, with tags, you would avoid the problems with having multiple places to post the same topic. Also crossposting (when your post covers multiple topics) would be easier.

By reducing it to tags, you risk topics getting flooded with irrelevant things or bad takes,

I don't see how such a risk would necessarily arise. And if it did, because switching to a different conversation (and moderator) is so easy, you'd just do so.

meanwhile OPs get to ensure no one in the comment can argue against whatever bad take they might make.

I've seen the same in communities. And who knows how often it happens? Posts just disappear.

Basically is makes the experience worse for every other user by cluttering feeds and promoting biased moderation.

Your arguments seem to lack substance.

If you didn't like what the guy posted you'd block him or his post.

Making an account on Lemmy is trivial. What's keeping someone from spamming accounts telling you to kill yourself?

I dunno. How do they prevent that on Lemmy?

They don't. So why do you want to give mod powers to bad actors?

I'm not seeing how that follows. You'd better explain it to me.

Why do you want to protect a person screaming that all trans people should die to post in a trans community?

That isn't an explanation.

If you see a specific example of me being defensive then address it.

If you see a lot of problems then list them.

"Are child sacrafices okay?"

OP gets assigned moderator

Deletes all answers but "YES"

"Alright, the internet have spoken, the ritual will happen in an hour"

A community moderator can do the exact same thing.

Yes, I know how one deals with bad moderators in lemmy. Mine is easier.

Easier for who? If every post is self moderated how does a semi-interested reader exclude trolling while still seeing interesting posts? If I want to avoid, say, a "vi v Emacs" flame-war, or keep a "DomeGuyFanboys" topic about me, how does poster-only moderation help me?

Also, my system makes moderation easier. Which makes for better moderators.

Easier for ***whom? *** The person wanting to post whatever they feel like, or the person who wants to browse funny cat pics at work without accidentally seeing porn?

You're absolutely right that self-curated social media places are considerably easier to either post without fear or create your own pseduo-groups. That's why famous people tended to be on Twitter and not Reddit.

But the people who want an ActivityPub Twitter already have Mastodon, and those who wanted an ActivityPub Reddit have Lemmy.

Maybe some hybrid interface would be worthwhile, but I don't think we'll find out by telling people on a topic-focused environment to be unilaterally person-focused.

Community moderators have long standing reputations. Some of them gets removed by admins

Are we just let every 1 hour account to post ragebait questions and silence dissent?

AI;DR

If you distrust a poster then you can refrain from interacting with him. Just like a community moderator or a regular user on Reddit or Lemmy. You can filter out likely suspects.

Also, this is really obvious stuff.

Easier for the user. In both cases.

It's easier to handle a bad moderator because going to or creating a new post is easier than going to or creating a new community (because you don't have to abandon all the members).

It's easier to moderate because there are more moderators. Each post is moderated by its creator.

Yeah, I didn't think so.