Quote from: tudor_simion on February 23, 2018, 08:03:20 PM

Quote from: haxllega on February 23, 2018, 07:46:06 PM

Quote from: ImTotya on February 23, 2018, 07:41:08 PM

Quote from: Frank37 on February 23, 2018, 12:23:58 PM

Quote from: aveon on February 22, 2018, 09:57:04 PM

Quote from: Bolovich on February 22, 2018, 08:43:03 PM

Quote from: viljy on February 22, 2018, 07:46:05 PM

Quote from: belechau on February 22, 2018, 06:56:54 PM

Quote from: aveon on February 22, 2018, 06:52:08 PM

Quote from: the_donald on February 22, 2018, 05:32:48 PM

Quote from: ParRus on February 22, 2018, 05:22:44 PM

Quote from: CHRISBIN702 on February 22, 2018, 03:56:33 PM

I agree but there is a fine line between censorship and snuffing out the lowlifes that live to ruin other peoples day. Moderation is a better term than censorship in these circumstances.

Such problem exists in all social networks, at places where going discourses about politics, religion, or history there always will be individuals who will try to hook up and provoke another by imposing their version of the truth.

yep happens everywhere. it's up to the moderation team to discuss and implement a cohesive policy.

Sure, there should be a kind of censorship in this network. However, the devs have to be cautious in terms of not being out of line in this stuff.

Sphere is certainly the kind of project that requires continuous work, in all stages of Ico and after it, Team seems to me aware of realizing a platform that covers the failures of today's networks, surely it is necessary to include ways to inhibit harmful behavior to other

Of course, censorship will have to be dealt with even in such a decentralized social network as the Sphere. Perhaps they could impose it on users. For example, a kind of dislike from the information, when a certain limit is reached, this information marked with dislike should be checked for compliance with the rules. Although this scheme also has drawbacks.

I also think that moderation is better than cersorship. I think censorship should only be in the most extreme cases.

Of course, but as for me, moderation is just a particular case of censorship in this case. Moreover, the latter can be done automatically, and for moderation we need people who will perform it.

You are right. I think we will need a system, where a content will be blocked, if 51 % of the users voted to block it. So you can avoid censorship from only a few privileged members.

Very interesting idea! A kind of controlling body that will monitor the information flow will be the users themselves! It's just brilliant.

But this can also lead to censorship of things the majority doesn't like. I think they should not concentrate that much on it.

I do not think it's a good idea that 51% of the users can vote to block content.
Everyone has his ideas, his principles, different characters.
Maybe some like something, others do not like it.
There is also the fact that someone has an altercation with someone else, and may want to block all their content.

in a sense, you are right, but do not forget that even the most decentralized network needs to be moderated, otherwise it is chaos!! And who can be a moderator not to lose the status of decentralization??? Only user! and only most!