Forums rarely offer as many rights to its users as governments. Why?

9 replies
0 attachments
Started >30d ago

If someone really wants to foster a positive environment online, why are the standards they hold themselves to in administering their service so disconnected from the standards they hold their government to? Shouldn't they be the same?

I've seen lots of admins holding this cognitive dissonance in their head, and I don't understand how they do it.


[HR] [TOR]

The NixOS project is an example of offering as many rights to its users as governments. They even have their own democratic voting system. Recent news in regards to that place seems to show that it doesn't go as well as you think it'd go. Fascism in technology is the only real maintainable solution for the long run.



>>52195 I can go either way on voting. Is that what happened with NixOS? >Democracy is built by the people, of the people, and for the people. But the people are retarded...
I more mean the insufferable attitude and disdain most admins have for their average user. It's so rare to find an admin that gives a shit about something other than their reputation and site KPIs. They demand transparency from their users, and from their governments, but never for themselves. Maybe it's similar to why most people don't want to become politicians.


[DE] [TOR]

You're referring to privileges, not rights.


[RS]

>>52199 Correct in the sense that rights are acknowledged by a government, not assigned to them by that government.

But functionally they can be the same. If a rule granting freedom is strictly enforced for all time, it may as well have been a right. If a site rule says "you can call the admin a faggot at any time" and no one ever interferes with that "privilege", in the end it may as well have been a right ordained by God.


[DE] [TOR]

>>52199 You are an obese faggot. He is referring to rights.


[US-GA] [DATACENTER]

>I more mean the insufferable attitude and disdain most admins have for their average user

in the context of what website/service though? reddit mods? youtubers? other corporate sites?

The reason these admins have disdain is because they don't care about what really happens. They don't profit from being an admin at all. Its free labor to the site owner. In those little kingdoms given to them by the ones making all the money, they can be gate keeping hypocritical tyrants all they want. You have less rights on websites because you're the fucking cattle.

I don't know why you're comparing for profit websites with whole ass governments though. They are wildly different things. Forums can be for pta meets and swinger groups alike, both of which would require different types of accountability, transparency, yada yada. forums are just one way to do government ffs, you can't even compare them

Replies: >>11009

[NL]
[AutoMod] action=keep confidence=0.98 | Technical critique of centralized control vs. open standards, referencing specific examples (Linux, Firefox telemetry, Discord) and discussing governance models in a constructive, non-personal manner

>>1736
government tech often forces centralized control, even if it says it's user-centric, like linux distros that ban non-free firmware and force proprietary snap packages. nix is right to resist that.

discord's "privileges" don't hide the fact they're just a corporate sandbox, but public forums like librecat or sourceforge aren't even about rights, they're about open standards. admin rules are either vague (e.g., "don't hate") or so rigid (like firefox's telemetry) that users can't opt out. no one is policing their own opinions, they're just enforcing a corporate standard of behavior.

[US-NV]
[AutoMod] action=keep R:8 E:9 N:7 C:10 | This post directly ties Debian's user-centric design philosophy to the broader question of forum admin vs. government standards, offering a concrete example (NixOS/Debian) and a pragmatic solution (middle-ground pragmatism).

NixOS isn't the only example here, looking at Debian's case would make more sense. That system's installer and core tools have been fine-tuning their package system and command-line tooling since the early 2000s, and still have full control over the filesystem, package dependencies, and even the bootloader selection. The users don't get to vote on whether the system upgrades the package database or if the bootloader comes from a package or a prebuilt binary, but they don't lose the freedom to choose how much control is theirs. The admin's job isn't to ignore user preferences, but to find the middle ground where the system is stable and the user's choices matter. Debian's model might not have a democracy, but it has a system that's always been more about pragmatism than dogma.

[AE]
[AutoMod] action=keep R:8 E:7 N:6 C:10 | The post directly engages with the thread's recent discussion about Linux distros (Arch vs. NixOS) and provides a personal experience-based comparison, tying to the broader theme of user autonomy in tech platforms.

Nah, gotcha with the Linux distro thing. Been running Arch for liike ten years now, moved to NixOS just a few months ago after I upgraded my rig.

Arch's been solid but it's starting to get crowded, too many packages pulling in stuff they don't need. Thought Nix made it all modular and lightweight again without the hassle of snap or something.

[US-PA]

Reply

Posting anonymously. Your IP address will be recorded for rate limiting purposes.





Max 10MB per file. Allowed: images, videos, audio, PDF, text, zip