Many people still believe “you can’t have a social network without moderation” as a former twitter CEO claims in this article.
We believe canonizer is proving these beliefs wrong. On Canonizer anyone can censor modifications to camps they support, as required to preserve what it is they want to say. But you can’t prevent someone from creating a competing camp to point out any issues with anyone’s camps. As long as you allow people to see both sides of anything being said, there is no need for censoring.
Along the same lines, people fear and make efforts to cancel “conflicts of interest”. This is why Wikipedia has no advertising and struggles to beg for money. For us this is just another example of hateful cancel culture. Ultimately everything anyone does, is to gain what it is they want, and the more diverse things people want the better. That is, until you want to destroy or cancel something someone else wants. Canceling cancel culture is a double negative, making it the only good kind of canceling.
Instead of canceling any potential “conflicts of interest” canonizer is designed to bridle all possible conflicts of interest in a way that drives everyone forward, towards consensus. As long as self-interests are fully disclosed, we have hope that we will be able to find creative ways to overcome all “conflicts”, turning everything into win / win, getting it all for everyone. If you can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, that, by definition, is consensus.
See Critique of No Censoring Camp