• Spiderwort@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yes it’s efficient. And the price is you have a cop now, telling us who can talk and what they can say. Maybe a good cop, maybe bad, probably limited in the ways that people generally are. But this is obvious.

    Ideally the conversation would be controlled by its participants and none other. That’s also obvious.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      No, it’s not obvious that conversations would be controlled by it’s participants when there are hundreds or thousands of participants.

      It works fine for 5 people, or even 10, but not once it scales beyond a certain point.

      Just like having a voice call with 5 or 10 people can work, but with 1000 people you have to force mute everyone or it’s going to be a shit show.

      • Spiderwort@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        For each participant in the conversation, tools to navigate the complexities of the1000 person conversation. Why not? What’s so special about an overarching authority?