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.

  • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
    12·
    11 hours ago

    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?”

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      I haven’t thought out every detail yet.

      Then why are you getting so defensive when people give you valid criticism throughout this thread?

      I hope you just thought of this off the cuff, since there’s a lot of problems with your idea, which people in the comments are poibtint out to you. At some point, a mature person would accept the idea was bad and move on, and not get too invested.

      • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
        11·
        11 hours ago

        I might.

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

            • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              4 minutes ago

              Well, then for education, here’s what happens to any place without censorship.

              Normal people are interacting happily. Some assholes come by and start being assholes without anyone stopping them. More assholes join because this is a great place for assholes. Normal people start getting annoyed with the great number of assholes and leave. It’s now a place for assholes.

              For “asshole” fill in nazi, pedophile, manospherian, etc.

        • marighost@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          10 hours ago

          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.