For example, do you need a degree in philosophy to be a moderator of the philosophy community?
If so, how do we test for that?
If not, why do we treat them as authority?
For example, do you need a degree in philosophy to be a moderator of the philosophy community?
If so, how do we test for that?
If not, why do we treat them as authority?
Who should have authority is a really subjective topic. You cannot find a matric, that will fit the definitions of the complete fediverse. So the current solution basically is ditching the vetting process (as it is subjective) and give everyone the possibility to build their community (or instance) with their own rules, admins and moderators. Then the users can choose where to go.
Is that perfect? No. It just solves the problem of moderation (which is necessary to avoid the worst behavior of human kind) differently than mainstream social media, by creating niches for everyone, which can be isolated by blocking and defederating.
Of course you can build your own instance and set the rule, than anyone, who wants to moderate, has to provide proof of corresponding education for the community. Maybe that works, though I doubt it.
People typically aren’t going to want ot be a part of a ‘fair’ community.
They are going to be a part of one that protects and promotes their beliefs and biases and keeps out the riff raff who don’t agree with them.
Like you’re not going to run a feminist community and allow men’s rights articles to be posted. Because your community is about promoting women’s issues.
A community about ‘everyone’s rights’ is just going to be a pissing contest because people are going to dogpile about their ‘side’.
Or even better, abandon communities and make the post (with its thread) the moderated unit.