Why do open-source social platforms have much more biased moderation than proprietary commercial alternatives?
Why do open-source social platforms have much more biased moderation than proprietary commercial alternatives?
No like seriously, I get that the admins work for free but FOSS is supposed to be about freedom and making products that everyone can benefit from yet still the bias is simply hilarious sometimes and concerning usually.
For the record, I'm talking about conflicts of different opinions here, not justifying hate speech or extremism. I know there is a major difference between FOSS and Big Data in terms of treatment of troll behavior (with the latter supporting it because it generates engagement), but it is clearly being misunderstood and abused now.
I even think I'd rather recommend proprietary options to others at this point because of mental health risks. Yes, I know that some major platforms are quite heavily biased politically (with X even being accused in supporting fascism) but it's not as bad as being biased in everything imo.
Can't we finally understand that the modern trends in most cultures praise exclusiveness (often cleverly disguised as distorted inclusiveness which sounds impossible but is actually a case and it hurts people's understanding of the latter) and work against it? Or at least we could do it for the FOSS reputation.
On the positive note though, Mastodon that is probably the biggest FOSS social platform seems to be pretty good (though probably a bit too close to the Big Data in terms of troll treatment). Could it be because of the size?
I suppose it has to do with the widespread belief that admins of an instance can be prosecuted for illegal text and imagery posted by their users.
I’ve often considered starting my own single user instance so I can say whatever is on my mind and subscribe to whoever I want without fear of legal reprisal.
Defederation and over-moderation has been a cancer to free speech (particularly on Lemmy.world). I detest the fact that instance admins get to decide which instances I can personally subscribe to.
Infosec.pub has been pretty good, though I do dislike the fact that I can’t see db.0 accounts and posts since I’m basically an anarcho syndicalist.
I suppose it has to do with the widespread belief that admins of an instance can be prosecuted for illegal text and imagery posted by their users.
I highly disagree with that. Admins of commercial platforms technically have higher risks due to higher attention from the government and sometimes more legal restrictions (e. g. gatekeepers). Also the FOSS community is not necessarily known for compliance but rather the opposite. I believe it's more about the personalities of the admins and the nature of the community itself, especially since many of the social platforms in question are less serious of projects than enormous businesses which leads to the increased feel of freedom and confidence amongst the developers and admins (makes them feel like they can be themselves and do whatever they want).
Everything else seems like points I completely agree with.
I dunno what you've been smoking, but compared to any of the corporate sites/services, moderation bias is unusually low. The times it does crop you are much more limited, unless you're on one of the known propaganda instances of Lemmy or Mastodon. But that's still an improvement over corporate services since it's a much smaller area of power
Well I'm glad you haven't experienced it on the platforms you use. I personally did (and it's not just about Lemmy and Mastodon) and saw others reporting it so that's why my opinion is different. Though I agree it's not always the case and some instances/platforms can be better than others.
Fair enough :)