Well said indeed!
if there is information being disseminated that could harm others, if assumed true, I don't see any harm in having it be challenged by a third party.
I think the challenging aspect is very important. After all, if something is sound, it should stand up and if something isn't sound, folk should wanna know about it. Also I'd like to think that the 'community' would act as that (decentralised and headless) third party....but it doesn't seem to work like that a lot of the time. (Perhaps not with you though :)
And there is the WTF puzzle if/when a 'mainstream'/widely-accepted chunk of info is being disseminated which - in the view of many, and backed up by considerable evidence - could not only harm others, but is prevented from being challenged such that it may be discovered by all if such be the case or not. :D ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Whether or not HIVE should be that party is lock-step with how youtube and facebook regulate and censor their content.
....and raises the ol' question of decentralisation, for Hive, with its XYZ+50 IQ ;) surely considers itself different from those dinosaurs....and yet similar-looking dynamics do seem to be desired by some who prefer 'dangerous' info to be banished rather than challenged......or so it has seemed to me when thinking about this post in general, and perhaps to you when typing the final para of your comment.
Thanks for taking the time to read and engage with this amorphous, perhaps shadowy, yet, I think, VERY FUCKING REAL, subject on Hive.
🙏
The big question with internet publishing forums today is that most of them want the immunity of a disinterested party, while still taking great liberties at screening, moderating, and controlling content that is published on their platforms. It appears as though Hive makes it a point to stay out of people's way and let the ledger speak for itself. But I do know that copyright infringement and plagiarism are frowned upon, as these would bring a lot of unwanted legal attention to the platform. As would allowing indecent material regarding children, for instance.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The problem is, they are allowed to moderate, screen, and pull content from the public view all they want, which makes them an interested publisher in my opinion. But they are protected against liability for the attacks in 2019 linked to Hamas, where those attacks were orchestrated on FB and FB was not held liable in any way.
Congress on both sides of the aisle think Big Internet has too much reach and not enough liability. And Australia seems to be handling those guys a LOT better than we are in the US.
You should check out @apshamilton