Notices by Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net), page 5

the answer is “they failed”

Can you be a little more specific? Like I said, I wasn’t using it while it “failed”, so I don’t have much experience here.

you still need to have some form of collaborative filtering / moderation.

But the advantage of those sorts of systems is that you can have many more types of moderation and collaborative filtering that aren’t “a single autocrat who owns or rents the hardware has absolute control”. Such as Aether’s democracy; or Scuttlebutt’s “subjective moderation”/public blocking; or maybe a hierarchy where the person at the top (say, the founder) delegates control to moderators to run subforums but he doesn’t have direct control over those subforums, and those moderators can delegate further and so on ad infinitum, like DNS; or a normal political system but with protection against certain abuses of power, such as shadowbanning. Sure, you could try and implement something like those systems in a standard server-focused model, but the single autocrat with the hardware can break the rules any time they like.

Private property and trade. The “inputs” are users’ ability to reassign ownership through donation or trade, and the “output” is a (sometimes formalized, sometimes only implied) database of who has the right to determine how each physical object is used. The goal is to encourage production of useful physical objects and put them into the hands of people who make best use of them.

I wonder if there are alternatives to this that are just as decentralised and credibly neutral.

@condret, you’re an ancom, what do you think?