I'm surprised that other comment wasn't received well. Will try to articulate myself more and see if that changes anything.
I'm not saying self moderation would eliminate bad groups. I think it would better contain them. I think having more siloed, fragmented, and naturally evolving online ecosystems would prevent any of the problems you mention from spilling over and infecting the entire culture.
I don't think any of those risks you mentioned are solved by centralized moderation. I think they're made worse, as everyone becomes incentivized to fight for control of moderation and is pulled towards ousting the other to recreate the groups those in power naturally feel most comfortable with. I firmly believe the social dilemma people are currently in is a result of the entire world trying to make rules for one big room, and no one is happy because people come from vastly different contexts that could never be properly accounted for in one room and one set of rules.
Allowing people to make their own decisions about association and information is far more scalable, democratic, and corruption resistant than trying to make platforms that appeal to all and respect all people from top down moderation. It allows people to let off steam privately and meet in designated rooms in the middle. That may seem terrifying given some of the people and groups out there. But I think recent history is a pretty good indicator that trying to forcibly educate and moderate people that are deemed a problem backfires severely. Malicious and violent groups can and should be contained and watched by others, but trying to prevent association and people deciding whats good and whats bad for themselves drives more people to opposition and affiliation with potentially violent groups than they would otherwise associate with. If people are able to express certain ideas without being automatically ousted from certain groups and affiliated with extremists, that lessens the pull to extremism.
There is no perfect solution, and I do not think that every forum should avoid top down moderation or that certain associations shouldn't be watched or potentially dealt with in the real world if dangerous enough. I just think more user directed moderation is in general the least worst option.
What's worse: a group spreading messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people made up of those who voluntarily choose that group over others in a world where other groups can counter message and organize and defend themselves, or a group that controls global messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people and bans all counter messaging?
What's worse: propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading in a forum of voluntarily associated zealots which bans and ignores criticism, but has no power over alternative group organization, or propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading on a global platform that bans and ignores criticism of all other groups?
I'm not saying self moderation would eliminate bad groups. I think it would better contain them. I think having more siloed, fragmented, and naturally evolving online ecosystems would prevent any of the problems you mention from spilling over and infecting the entire culture.
I don't think any of those risks you mentioned are solved by centralized moderation. I think they're made worse, as everyone becomes incentivized to fight for control of moderation and is pulled towards ousting the other to recreate the groups those in power naturally feel most comfortable with. I firmly believe the social dilemma people are currently in is a result of the entire world trying to make rules for one big room, and no one is happy because people come from vastly different contexts that could never be properly accounted for in one room and one set of rules.
Allowing people to make their own decisions about association and information is far more scalable, democratic, and corruption resistant than trying to make platforms that appeal to all and respect all people from top down moderation. It allows people to let off steam privately and meet in designated rooms in the middle. That may seem terrifying given some of the people and groups out there. But I think recent history is a pretty good indicator that trying to forcibly educate and moderate people that are deemed a problem backfires severely. Malicious and violent groups can and should be contained and watched by others, but trying to prevent association and people deciding whats good and whats bad for themselves drives more people to opposition and affiliation with potentially violent groups than they would otherwise associate with. If people are able to express certain ideas without being automatically ousted from certain groups and affiliated with extremists, that lessens the pull to extremism.
There is no perfect solution, and I do not think that every forum should avoid top down moderation or that certain associations shouldn't be watched or potentially dealt with in the real world if dangerous enough. I just think more user directed moderation is in general the least worst option.
What's worse: a group spreading messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people made up of those who voluntarily choose that group over others in a world where other groups can counter message and organize and defend themselves, or a group that controls global messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people and bans all counter messaging?
What's worse: propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading in a forum of voluntarily associated zealots which bans and ignores criticism, but has no power over alternative group organization, or propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading on a global platform that bans and ignores criticism of all other groups?