It is the perennial problem of governance. You try to fix a problem but there will always be consequential effects from whatever solution you devise.
In any system governing human behavior a community will have certain objectives and values. SNs ones are based upon freedom of speech but also strongly held views on other topics like economics and political structures. Most communities rely upon some general degree of social pressure for members to conform to agreed standards and behaviours to discourage that which reduces the achievement of objectives.
Where a topic is raised what most of us would say is we want the ability to hear, share and consider contrasting viewpoints, but this clashes sometimes with fiercely held but ultimately insecure participants. At this point some members of the community seek to avoid and evade reasoned dialogue and debate and instead indulge in personal attacks and obstruction of reasoned dialogue- perhaps because their strongly held views are being challenged but they feel unable to credibly and transparently respond. Don't mention the war!
The misuse of downzapping could be easily substantially reduced if one simple mechanism was put in place. That the nym of the downzapper was identified and attached to the downzap action.
That would bring accountability to the downzapper and avoid the sly anonymous censorship that can and does now occur.
The downzapper would have imposed on them the social pressure to explain their reasoning for downzapping certain topics into obscurity and would have to weigh that up against their own ongoing credibility. Currently there is zero credibility risk incurred by deliberate and malicious downzapping because the downzapper can conceal their nym.
It is the perennial problem of governance.
You try to fix a problem but there will always be consequential effects from whatever solution you devise.
In any system governing human behavior a community will have certain objectives and values.
SNs ones are based upon freedom of speech but also strongly held views on other topics like economics and political structures.
Most communities rely upon some general degree of social pressure for members to conform to agreed standards and behaviours to discourage that which reduces the achievement of objectives.
Where a topic is raised what most of us would say is we want the ability to hear, share and consider contrasting viewpoints, but this clashes sometimes with fiercely held but ultimately insecure participants.
At this point some members of the community seek to avoid and evade reasoned dialogue and debate and instead indulge in personal attacks and obstruction of reasoned dialogue- perhaps because their strongly held views are being challenged but they feel unable to credibly and transparently respond. Don't mention the war!
The misuse of downzapping could be easily substantially reduced if one simple mechanism was put in place.
That the nym of the downzapper was identified and attached to the downzap action.
That would bring accountability to the downzapper and avoid the sly anonymous censorship that can and does now occur.
The downzapper would have imposed on them the social pressure to explain their reasoning for downzapping certain topics into obscurity and would have to weigh that up against their own ongoing credibility. Currently there is zero credibility risk incurred by deliberate and malicious downzapping because the downzapper can conceal their nym.