> Cancer patients don't want chemo, but it's better than dying, some might say.
What good is chemo if your patients refuse it?
> Reddit: Limit subreddits to 500 participants at most. Eliminate the number next to upvotes.
This doesn't stop people from posting disturbing content, and it destroys reddit's entire model. This solution doesn't work.
> Verify accounts.
In what way? Do you want to abolish anonymity? Because I can tell you right now that most of us aren't interested in such a solution.
> Limit posting.
In what way? Throttling posting speed? Sure if you just lessen the amount of content overall there will also be less disturbing content... but there's still disturbing content that needs to be moderated.
> This is not any feature inherent to the Web, it's a function of sites that purposefully link together and allow people to rapidly post information.
The default state of the internet is publicly viewable information. Thus it's an inherent feature that you can access almost anything out there.
> Pre-social media
As far as I'm aware, there was no such time. There have almost always been bulletin boards, forums, chat rooms, image/file sharing sites, and other forms of social media.
> there will be less content to moderate
Dividing up the content doesn't reduce the amount of it that needs to be moderated any more than cutting a cake reduces the amount of cake.
> Elimination of advertisers and the implementation of cost (as a form of friction), I think, would also go a long way. Cost per post would be ideal.
This just shuts people out according to income bracket. It reduces the total population, but I doubt it helps reduce the fraction of that population that are interested in posting and sharing disturbing content. It's just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
What good is chemo if your patients refuse it?
> Reddit: Limit subreddits to 500 participants at most. Eliminate the number next to upvotes.
This doesn't stop people from posting disturbing content, and it destroys reddit's entire model. This solution doesn't work.
> Verify accounts.
In what way? Do you want to abolish anonymity? Because I can tell you right now that most of us aren't interested in such a solution.
> Limit posting.
In what way? Throttling posting speed? Sure if you just lessen the amount of content overall there will also be less disturbing content... but there's still disturbing content that needs to be moderated.
> This is not any feature inherent to the Web, it's a function of sites that purposefully link together and allow people to rapidly post information.
The default state of the internet is publicly viewable information. Thus it's an inherent feature that you can access almost anything out there.
> Pre-social media
As far as I'm aware, there was no such time. There have almost always been bulletin boards, forums, chat rooms, image/file sharing sites, and other forms of social media.
> there will be less content to moderate
Dividing up the content doesn't reduce the amount of it that needs to be moderated any more than cutting a cake reduces the amount of cake.
> Elimination of advertisers and the implementation of cost (as a form of friction), I think, would also go a long way. Cost per post would be ideal.
This just shuts people out according to income bracket. It reduces the total population, but I doubt it helps reduce the fraction of that population that are interested in posting and sharing disturbing content. It's just throwing the baby out with the bath water.