I take a different view. I think moderation is hopefully not needed. What is needed is some way to differentiate topics within a community. As far as banning users, I would hope a group approach would work. Like maybe if enough community members mute a given user, your client can pick up on that signal and start muting that user also. Not ending up with a million communities for the same subject would be nice too, but not sure how you avoid that one without centralizing. I think there is a lot of cross functionality between circles of trust and communities. Maybe circles of trust can have a community-specific circle. Should this thread have some community hashtag? I don’t know what that hashtag is.
Or maybe all such mechanisms should be there , and communities with a better overall environment will win out 😛
Well, I know in Lemmy you end up with many communities on the same subject but some clients let the user join communities under a single banner, which is somewhat helpful but I don’t think that’s the ultimate answer for the most part. It does seem like communities win out based on number of users, but you always end up with somebody that doesn’t pay attention to that number and participates in the community with a few users. I do think Lemmy is a good test testing ground for figuring out what works.
Communities are curation mechanisms they WILL centralize, a Bible group will ban blasphemous content. Also nostr by nature is censorship resistant so anybody could still share their views outside the group. I don't think we should be focussed on censorship in cases of communities because communities are by nature exclusive to some degree
Yeah, I would hope they share their views within the group because nobody can really be banned from the group, but those that want to only pay attention to a subset of users of the group have a way of doing that although I think that’s to their own detriment.
Oddbean new post about login | logout