Shailesh Bavadekar

Listened to a wonderful discussion between @klonick and @arozenshtein about decentralized social media. I have a question/comment:

The centralized social networks pay a massive price to employ T&S / legal experts, and huge armies of content moderators. The idea that we can make that cost go away by simply rearranging the network topology feels way too good to be true.

There is nothing preventing centralized social networks from adopting similar model if it cut costs! What are we missing here?

Nov 13, 2022 at 2:09amWeb
Show threadpetnoodleNov 13, 2022
@shaileshb @klonick @arozenshtein : At risk of talking when I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd say that when they first started up, the centralized platforms weren't as bulked up with that stuff because it all was so much smaller scale and therefore a little more personal and trust-based? If a decentralized platform mushroomed up into millions of people, it probably would have to too (therefore it shouldn't)
Show threadShailesh BavadekarNov 13, 2022
@petnoodle @klonick @arozenshtein Right. If we view each instance as a mini-centralized network, but without anyone being paid to mind the trust and safety, at what point does this start becoming a problem as the number of users grows?
Show threadpetnoodleNov 13, 2022
@shaileshb @klonick @arozenshtein I would think the answer would be to keep all instances below the number (n) where such self-moderation is no longer possible. This is starting to remind me of discussions about ideal anarchist communities/consensus decision-making, etc — above what number of people are they no longer viable