Draupnir is now being supported with a grant from NLnet NGI Zero. I've written up a post with some context, and to describe the goals for the project https://marewolf.me/posts/draupnir/24-nlnet-goals.html
If you do have feedback or questions you can reach out to me here or in our matrix room https://matrix.to/#/#draupnir:matrix.org (which is preferred).
#Matrix
If you do have feedback or questions you can reach out to me here or in our matrix room https://matrix.to/#/#draupnir:matrix.org (which is preferred).
#Matrix
@Gnuxie
https://github.com/the-draupnir-project/Draupnir
>The second is to protect your community by applying policies from community curated policy lists, for example the community moderation effort, to your rooms around the clock. This means that communities can warn and protect each other of known threats
Sounds like fediblock with all the bad that entails. What online moderation really needs is a mechanism for due process. Cc: @ntnsndr
https://github.com/the-draupnir-project/Draupnir
>The second is to protect your community by applying policies from community curated policy lists, for example the community moderation effort, to your rooms around the clock. This means that communities can warn and protect each other of known threats
Sounds like fediblock with all the bad that entails. What online moderation really needs is a mechanism for due process. Cc: @ntnsndr
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
@Hyolobrika @ntnsndr well my assurance isn't worth much but fediblock/hot-allostatic-load is something I want to avoid. In the Matrix ecosystem we don't really have shared opinionated blacklists yet that deal with incidents that aren't clear cut. The biggest list called the "community moderation effort" for example exclusively deals with spam. That is a cultural thing though and is bound to change.
Because of that there's currently no defenses in software terms for someone lying or making things up. But as part of the plan I deliberately want to introduce agree/disagree ratings and policy expiry as a stepping stone.
At the moment I think to deal with disputes we need to change how people approach them entirely, that's to say I don't feel comfortable with people approaching them with the same tooling that you'd use to deal with a spam attack or a brigade of nazis. It's out of scope for the current work but I have loosely been thinking about it https://github.com/the-draupnir-project/Draupnir/issues/228 would appreciate any insight you have.
Because of that there's currently no defenses in software terms for someone lying or making things up. But as part of the plan I deliberately want to introduce agree/disagree ratings and policy expiry as a stepping stone.
At the moment I think to deal with disputes we need to change how people approach them entirely, that's to say I don't feel comfortable with people approaching them with the same tooling that you'd use to deal with a spam attack or a brigade of nazis. It's out of scope for the current work but I have loosely been thinking about it https://github.com/the-draupnir-project/Draupnir/issues/228 would appreciate any insight you have.