[buttershakes]

I really like this idea, but I'm struggling with the decentralized aspect of it. If you can control the content, what exactly are the user's getting? Content can be scraped and saved indefinitely, the IP address information can potentially be leaked, the exact security of the system is unclear.

It seems like I'm just moving to a less efficient platform with more open moderation and socialized bandwidth and storage costs.

[rolleiflex]

The point is that you can choose your own moderators. No one that you don’t explicitly trust as a moderator can delete content you see. If you no longer trust a moderator, you disable him / her and all moderation actions that was taken by that person is reverted on your machine.

[anonytrary]

I was confused, too. They claim it is cryptographically impossible to edit someone else's posts, but apparently some group of people have the ability to take down people's posts. I'm wondering -- what's the point, then?

It's not censorship resistant, but at least it tries to be transparent (all moderator actions are visible). I'm still not seeing how this would be any better than Reddit if a small group of people have centralized control over the content distribution.