Dream a little dream of inquiry

> I'd say 10 MILLION folks leaving in two weeks > qualifies as more than a “mini-stampede”. I'd say it > looks more like a mass migration. I'd say it's a big deal.

Yep.

My wife told me about “Gab”, and I took a quick look. But while I easily slip into political rant (as though I enjoy it), it vies for least favorite textural neighborhood status. I'd honestly rather read/write bad poetry, for example. But my first glance gave me the impression it was mostly a place for people to politically pontificate. And although I probably agree with a lot of it, I vastly prefer tmo style posts – i.e. shorter and sweeter ongoing glimpses into daily thoughts and happenings.

> I, of course, am not a celebrity of any kind, and have > zero “fans”.

I can say with complete confidence it's not zero. ;–)

> I don't care at all about what XYZ celebrity, group, > person of fame does/says about this or that. Just how it > is at this point in my life.

My only weakness along such lines was Mister Lennon. And most of the time he sounded bewildering to me. But his gems were “we're going to need some security guards” grade.

I'll never forget the details of my night the evening he died. But I'm glad I eventually realized the man packed more into his 40 years than I could in hundreds.

> In a broad scope, the “hammering through” of social > correspondence through a terribly small medium (be it a > single social network, or two, or even three (nowhere NEAR > enough platforms to choose from)) is flawed in the BIGGEST > way through lack of moderation. And trust me, no AI or > onboarding of human moderators will fix what is wrong at > the social giants. If Twitter/Facebook and the like figure > out how to get 2B+ people to submit and “act nice”, > they will have solved “The General's Dilemma” that > governments have been trying to wrap their head around > since... the dawn of civilization. > > No, the actual “fix” to the trepidation and > toxicity of correspondence on the Internet is to divide > everything into smaller groups. A decentralized network of > networks. Without one being bigger than the other. Also, > a fairly low (yet, possibly arbitrary) cap on the AMOUNT > of people that can belong to one group.

Great post.

But... (I can't help but wonder what/how others think..) who keeps moderation from becoming censorship when the moderation is the last/final word?

Said another way, how does the swamp self-correct when swamp seems just fine and dandy to it?

> For one, I am switching back to the TMO moniker, handle, > whatever. So people know who this is (for those who DO > know who I am).

It is a damned good one!