> The idea carries over into online discussion forums. Some believe that
> strong, centralized control is necessary, because people can not be
> trusted; maybe most people are good, but rotten apples require systems
> of control. While others tentatively believe that a decentralized
> system is possible, and point to success stories.
>
> Take the reasoning of an anarchist magazine, justifying moderation:
>
> "1) The internet tends to be a shitty place to have really good
> discussion. The reason that the letters section of Anarchy:A
> Journal of Desire Armed is enjoyable is because the amount of
> effort that it takes to actually send in a letter also seems to be
> tied to some willingness to have a more thoughtful, careful, and
> interesting conversation. That is the only kind of discussion that
> makes having a message board worth having.
You leave out the rest of the context. Anarchy magazine has been publishing most of the letters it gets, for over 20 years. The magazine has devoted considerable resources to printing these letters, most of which I think shouldn't be printed. But the magazine is interested in printing all, or most, of the letters it receives.
I don't agree with the magazine's policy, but it's their choice. Their website is adopting a different policy for the Internet medium. These decisions, as well as the policies we have at Infoshop, are consistent with anarchist principles. These are our projects, therefore we have the right to set the parameters for discussion. It's about freedom of association and disassociation. I don't see how this is "centralized" or "strong", anymore than the so-called "decentralized" moderation system of Digg is actually controlled by a few of the most active participants.
Chuck