The COVID thread is the poor shop window for the project - and due to the pace of the “debate”- is most often the top item - far more so than WUT, I think
Again I feel that is a more suitable thread to be banished from the front page. I am ambivalent on the fate of WUT but if that is to go then the COVID thread should go alongside it.
I suggest that it be limited to news items (any source) within the last week and about topics on censorship, privacy, security, & freedom plus things related to those things … basically anything related to SN.
Judging that is hard though, so I’d expect some leeway to be granted.
edit: also pointers to new discussion threads should be allowed.
1 Like
This is the problem. Sources are not equal.
No they are not … but none are qualified to pre-judge and hence censor. Judging the source needs to be a public process.
Yes. This is called “peer review”.
Actually most “peer review” (in science and that I am aware of) isn’t publicly done. It’s one of the big failings of the process in science IMO.
If we were to adopt the process of scientific peer review for sources, it would be more akin to moderator review - which I would be against - specifically in terms of judging sources.
The topic of the Safe Network Forum, is the Safe Network - so, you could put everything else into off-topic or limit for those who have been members for a while. There’s a risk of the forum becomes too quiet and dry that the lack of random hooks and what is interesting fail to engage new users…
I would worry less about other people’s perception… it’s the dull normal error that is half the problem these days… just act with confidence and the truth will shine brighter than the dullness.
The Watch this Video and Covid threads are less on topics that WUT for the technical links.
Having some freedom to think whatever, without anxiety and perception control, is attractive to those seeking a solution to the stifled normal.
Forum gives users option to mute and block others… actions driven by a sense that what we have is not good enough, should focus on the positive and not be driven by the negative… otherwise we become easily manipulated.
tldr; positive activity is more important than worrying about others perception of what negatives there are - people are used to the negatives and dullness - they will be here looking for what is better.
I’m not sure what you mean by “not publicly”. Not every Youtuber’s view is considered at universities. Peers with the same level of education in the field do the reviewing of papers. But that doesn’t mean the process isn’t public, as in “secret”.
It isn’t public as the potential publisher isn’t showing it to all the peers out there to give comment … the publisher and the scientist who wrote the paper specifically choose the peers to take input from … so there is bias that enters into the process.
1 Like
and some like bias of course… those on top, like others to behave… but there’s the rub.
Echo chambers are a more problem than any threads in public view… birds in cages is the same dullness. “Why won’t other people just behave”, drives too much of what then becomes a problem, stifling opportunity for others to engage.
The inverse is too few people with loud voices driving down the conversation.
I’ve never seen a forum limit the number of posts per time but wonder what effect that would have… limit everyone to one post per day! 
2 Likes
So far it seems like no one disagrees with you @happybeing.
I wrote my thoughts on “whats up today” in this thread: Are "What's up today?" and "Watch this video" in the wrong category?
tl;dr: I disagree with Happybeing on not putting it in Off-Topic because my opinion is that the rules of the forum should be enforced.
1 Like