So, in your view, email and the web are examples of garbage networks?
Decentralized networks (such as the web) work differently from centralized network (such as cable TV and Facebook) and have different strategies for coping with misuse. You can not moderate a permissionless network. That's literally part of the meaning.
In a decentralized network, I follow you by subscribing to your data. Conversations usually follows that data naturally, just like a mailing list is centralized but email is not.
> So, in your view, email and the web are examples of garbage networks?
Mostly so, but it is worth the trouble.
About 90% of emails I receive are spam. So, email is 90% garbage. The 10% left is the sinews of my life.
Fortunately, the industry found ways to cope, by contributing to mostly centralized DNSBL services such as spamhaus.
The same goes for the Web: centralized services like Google or (is there something else? ) filter out the irrelevant, dangerous, and fake (with varying degrees of success).
Moderation? Inevitable. Distributed moderation? Not so much.
The parent post is right: if you don't make it built-in, it will not be how you like.
You're speaking way too strongly. Email is a huge success, it's potentially the most successful network. I've had my email address over a decade and get less than 1% spam, handled by gmail spam filtering.
You can say that you personally want moderation in your networks, but you have no basis to make general claims about moderation being necessary.
> ... get less than 1% spam,
> handled by gmail spam filtering.
I'm starting to see more and more reports of people having their emails automatically go to gmail spam folders, unless the emails are coming from gmail itself. I've seen both sides of this - gmail regularly bins emails I sent from a non-gmail account, and my gmail accounts regularly bin genuine emails from non-gmail accounts, but apparently never from gmail accounts.
It's almost like there's a pervasive force, trying to make people use gmail.
I don’t think garbage and success are mutually exclusive in this regard. Email is a huge success, and is an important centerpiece of most of our online lives, but as said, most is spam.
Gmail spam filtering is moderation, which is being argued that without which, email would be near unusable, which is true for most.
Sometimes I do want to see the messages of people I did not subscribe to. For example when they reply to my message. In this case I need to have some filtering (read: moderation) system in place that ensures I do not get overwhelmed with spam, or gore[1] for that matter.
[1] of course the beauty of a distributed system is that those who want to see gore can not be denied this right.
All of the above work by permitting the end-user to moderate to the extent he / she wishes, or not at all.
I had kill-lists for Usenet, I can DNS-blacklist websites I never want to see, I can grey-list or silently drop troublesome e-mailers. No-one makes the choice as to degree or method except me and yet it works.
Decentralized networks (such as the web) work differently from centralized network (such as cable TV and Facebook) and have different strategies for coping with misuse. You can not moderate a permissionless network. That's literally part of the meaning.
In a decentralized network, I follow you by subscribing to your data. Conversations usually follows that data naturally, just like a mailing list is centralized but email is not.