Of course you can have online discussion without moderation. In the most basic form: you publish on your site, I respond on mine. No moderator involved
And there are plenty of other differences besides "who", for example, "how".
And there are plenty of other differences besides "who", for example, "how".
That's a big negatory.
>you publish on your site,
And your site gets a takedown for illegal content, or cops show up at your door and drag you out while beating you.
Life is heavily moderated in a million different ways. What we're talking about this point is just moderation or unjust moderation.
I'll make my position clear: many parties try to influence people, and quite a few of them do so with grave consequences. The swing to extreme right politics cannot be seen separate from internet interference. In the words of the article: it's already not "technology serving people", but rather "controlling" them.
If extreme right (or left) parties come to power, your freedom of speech and privacy is over. So it's either moderate moderation, or authoritarian moderation. And if it's up to me, it's not your choice.
It sounds like that would precisely be a solution to the problems of using these platforms.
So? If you can disengage from them, then your problem is solved.
> and also that a personal blog is not a solution for the vast majority.
It's not reasonable to presume that any specific thing is the best solution for the "vast majority". A healthy ecosystem arises when lots of people with different use cases and preferences build the optimal solutions for themselves; when people try to build universal solutions based on speculation about what's optimal for "the vast majority", that's when things start to go off the rails.
I think blogs are quite viable for many more people than are currently using them; on top of that, the emerging "fediverse" is increasingly replicating the UI and functionality of social media platforms without the centralized middlemen, and if amidst this rapidly diversifying set of options, some people still choose to use centralized social media, then that's their prerogative.
Correct, specifically, Elon removed widespread (and thoroughly documented) left wing interference on Twitter.
Unfortunately he did eventually add back his own (in the form of boosting his own account), but it's much freer than it was, and for whatever reason Zuck decided to follow suit.