From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
      
   > either ignore, or boost, up to the individual receiving "the firehose"   
   > of information.   
   >   
   > But it also requires that same user to have to put in the small effort   
   > to "curate" it as it were.  And that's part of its downfall.  The lazy   
   > 'content consumer' user (i.e, the 90+ percentile of users) does not   
   > even want to put in that effort.  Plus it has one other item those with   
   > "fragile sensitivities" dislike.  The user needs to be exposed to at   
   > least one post on a topic they do not want to see in order to recognize   
   > a need to add a killfile entry.  For the "snowflakes" of the world (of   
   > which there are way too many) they think their "sensitivities" are soo   
   > fragile that they can't even stand to see "one" of something they don't   
   > like in order to be able to say "no, no more like this".  They want   
   > "god" (the algorithm) to provide it all to them, prefiltered in just   
   > they way they want, with no effort on their part, and with never having   
   > their sensitivities triggered by seeing something they don't want to   
   > see.   
      
   This is the truth!   
      
   >> The only addition on top of the killfile I could imagine, would be   
   >> the "communal killfile" where you add accounts to a common list and   
   >> then use that list together.   
   >>   
   >> The weakness is of course that it can be abused, so I think a communal   
   >> killfile would most likely only work for a smaller group of individuals   
   >> with similar taste and ideology when it comes to politics and free speech.   
   >   
   > As you say, the 'communal killfile' has the problem of abuse built in   
   > from the start.   
      
   Yep... I only see it working on a small scale. On a big scale, it will   
   be abused and slowly deteriorate until no posts at all are let through.   
      
   > And, for countries that purport to support 'free speech' a communial   
   > killfile is also very close to a 'free speech suppression' mechanism.   
   >   
   > At least with personal kill files there's no 'free speech' erosion   
   > situation, due to the simple fact that in all 'free speech' regimes,   
   > the 'freedom' to 'speak' is what is allowed, but there is no   
   > requirement that "I must listen to you speak".  The personal killfile   
   > fits that perfectly.  Bob can "speak" all he likes, but I can set it so   
   > I don't have to listen to what Bob is speaking.   
      
   Also true.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)