Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

cantsayanything.win

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until your view becomes the one attacked. Regardless of scientific merit.

I think you and the other posters decrying my "oh so narrow" point of view forget that the subreddit is nothing more than a place to see interesting news about science and the clarifications that people in science can bring on those news. What it is not is a place where laymen like me and (probably you) can debate the veracity of said science. I don't give a toss about which science articles are posted there and if t…

Check out this talk from Jonathan Rauch [1]. He goes through how both the left and right censor, and how that ends up being good for nobody, even if it starts out happening only in the private sector.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=1774s

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#132
post #81
post #60

I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user…

None of my removed comments on reddit have ever broken any site or sidebar rules. When I've used this tool to ask mods for clarification about removed comments, mods have just made stuff up (example: saying I was engaging in namecalling when I didn't even refer to another person at all... the real reason is the mod disagreed with the position I was advocating for) and sometimes issued bans. As a user, revealing this…

While this is commonly the case, also look at another effect occurring here, especially in larger or more controversial subs.

That is, someone was reporting large number of your particular posts. If you go to a moderation queue and there are 1000 backlogged moderation tasks, even at a second each, you've still taken 15 minutes of that moderators life. Chances are they shortcut and lean to banning before reading because huge parts of the moderation queue are objective trash content.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#133
post #125
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can see how shadowbanning ("bot-bans")is effective against bot accounts, since it's less trivial for a bot maker to write code that detects when their bot has been detected, resulting in a lower rate of new bot accounts. Huh? It's trivial to write code that detects shadow bans, and bot-makers are more likely to write such code than individuals who get shadow banned. I mention this at 28:00 in the linked video on…

>The fuss over bots makes no sense to me. Have you been paying attention to some of the content ending up on reddit then? I've been seeing accounts in posts with no original content. They appear to index other users threads then apply some ML and post them to other similar subjects where it seems to fit. It was only when I saw one of these bots post the same content in a thread with two different user accounts that I…

You're ignoring the core argument and going on a tangent. Bots being a problem (which they very well might be) is not at all solved by shadowbanning because it's trivial to detect.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#134
post #128
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We experienced that too, at a much higher rate. Mods would get blamed for deletions AutoMod would do. Turned into quite a shitshow. Sorry, how are mods not responsible for the bot they coded? Or, are you saying users were attributing the removals to humans rather than understanding that it was done by a script? If the latter, then I'm not sure the distinction is so important for users. What they care about is under…

>In the real world, we do not throw criminals in jail Again, you seem to be very confused about private property. Think of it as a civil action, which at least in US law, that is operated under a completely different set of books and assumptions. For example I can tell you to leave my properly in a civil action without any explanation why. If you come back a criminal charge can be presented against you. Much like a b…

You must be trolling, haha, there was more to my quote! We do throw criminals in jail, the point was we don't do it without making a public record of how and why.

That was an analogy that you've taken completely out of context and on another tangent.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#135
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might. What would happen then? I'd argue there'd be a lot of good discussion. Why bother though? There are thousands of places you can have that discussion, including on Reddit. You can set up, say, /r/scienceforall right now and establish the rules you want. The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You mig…

> Why bother though? See 18:20 [1] and 19:52 [2] in the talk linked on this post. Nobody will visit r/scienceforall because r/science will remove references to it. Plus, forcing me to set up a group doesn't sound like a solution, it sounds like a shake down. To get an open discussion space I have to moderate it, and then have the social media site threaten removal of my mod powers if I fail to remove something they d…

I think the issue here is that you’re blurring your complaints between the two quite distinct issues of heavy-handed moderation, and shadow moderation. You’re talking about having a philosophical or principled issue with shadow moderation; fine - I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a reasonable argument to have.

But what you have ended up saying here is “all moderation in all communities must be to my own standards and any others are wrong”. And I don’t think that’s reasonable - individual communities, like on Reddit, should have the freedom to enforce the rules of those communities as they see fit. Reddit is full of terrible, mostly unmoderated cesspits; it’s also full of heavily- and lightly-moderated subs.

I would tend to agree that moderation in general should be on the lighter side and in particular there should be approaches to tackle the abuse of power that’s pretty common (such as auto-banning links to alternative subs you mention). But I have seen so many spaces ruined by lack of moderation over the years that it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it as a cause.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#136
post #60

I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user…

> I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user curiosity. I don't like it.

Upvote because this is an important viewpoint being shared that is in the minority in this thread.

I made this tool to challenge the systems that enable the secret removal of content. You wouldn't need to spend an extra second moderating if the system simply indicated to authors that their comments were removed. The burden placed upon you comes from today's social media sites, not Reveddit.

I didn't make the tool to give mods a hard time. I made it so people, both mods and users, can help themselves into better environments. "Better" means spaces where people might have to have difficult conversations that challenge their existing world views, and where they need to sharpen their arguments to get ready for real world conversations when they meet people with whom they disagree.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#137

On my phone, the link to the CantSayAnything/About/Sticky page goes to a 404. I thought Kelly Cotters paper was very interesting - it seems like “gaslighting” is becoming a more common way to call out people or companies who are not technically lying but are definitely communicating something that isn’t true. Unfortunately that’s a common enough thing now that it’s useful to have a simple reference.

> On my phone, the link to the CantSayAnything/About/Sticky page goes to a 404.

Try this,

https://www.reddit.com/r/CantSayAnything/comments/xwvbsy/wri...

> I thought Kelly Cotters paper was very interesting

Yes she is great. To my knowledge, she's one of the few who has actually questioned and researched the area of shadow moderation. Here's the paper for any interested,

https://kelleycotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Shadowba...

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#138
post #134
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the real world, we do not throw criminals in jail Again, you seem to be very confused about private property. Think of it as a civil action, which at least in US law, that is operated under a completely different set of books and assumptions. For example I can tell you to leave my properly in a civil action without any explanation why. If you come back a criminal charge can be presented against you. Much like a b…

You must be trolling, haha, there was more to my quote! We do throw criminals in jail, the point was we don't do it without making a public record of how and why. That was an analogy that you've taken completely out of context and on another tangent.

While I do think your work is interesting indeed, and needs to be done to examine the problems at hand, and my replies may be unintentionally harsh towards you, there has been a general trend where many users think they have a right to an audience. This presidence doesn't exist without contract, and the contract in social media heavily biased in the direction of the media as the user is only indirectly paying for the service.

As you've stated in this thread, an involuntary contract between the government, the media company, and the user are not optimal as it tends to give more power to political entities. Voluntary contracts between the business and non-paying users are seemingly just as worthless, no for profit entity is going to hobble itself in a such a risky manner. As it stands that contract is "We the media company can do whatever we like, and you can jump off a bridge".

It is possible for user outrage to change the media companies behavior, but when there are no valid alternatives because of network effects, companies will commonly say they are going to change to placate quell the masses, and then do nothing because the users will remain on the site anyway. Many places have tried compete against Reddit, but mostly under the 'no moderation' banner in which the sites become a toxic hell hole. As of so far 'better moderation' has not been a motivator to get users to shift. Maybe your work will lead people that way.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#139
post #118
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation is fine, but what about secret moderation? The issue here is that users are being shown their removed comments as if they are publicly visible . I share my thoughts on the impact at 19:54 [1] in the video linked in this post. > So at that time you have a choice: either you moderate, in order to keep the channel on-topic, or you accept everything, at which point the guys who benefit from science not being a…

If moderation isn’t silent then r/silence becomes “r/hey why has my comment been moderated, this is bullshit”. Same result as not moderating - The conversation about science gets diluted by the noise people lacking the basic skill level make.

> If moderation isn’t silent then r/silence becomes “r/hey why has my comment been moderated, this is bullshit”. Same result as not moderating - The conversation about science gets diluted by the noise people lacking the basic skill level make.

That's a myth. Discourse tells me when my content is moderated. Plenty of forums have worked this way by default without being overwhelmed by spam.

The widespread use of secret removals is unique to the social media era. It may have even helped create today's social media monopolies.

There is another harmful effect. The more you secretly remove toxic users' commentary from view, the less signal they get that their views are not approved. In fact, removing them from view makes society worse off since you're also taking away agency from other users who could be preparing counter arguments. Then, when these two disconnected groups meet in the real world, there's a shouting match (or worse) because they never had to deal with those arguments before. What's more, extremists in otherwise upstanding groups won't realize they're being censored. They may, as a result, think they're of the same mind since their extreme viewpoints were not challenged (as they would be in the real world). By the time they act in the real world, they're far removed from reality.

Secretly removing commentary is different from just ignoring someone in the real world. IRL if you ignore someone, they know you've ignored them. Online if you "ignore" them by secretly removing their comments, they don't know they've been ignored, and thousands or millions of other users don't know that that line of argument even existed as a thought in someone else's mind. It's incomprehensible to them.

It's sad that hundreds of thousands of online moderators think they're helping society by secretly removing such commentary, while in doing so they may actually be creating the environment they seek to avoid. Everyone is trying to create pristine corners online, and it ends up covering the whole map. Meanwhile the real world goes down the drain. Many of us spend too much time using systems whose operations we aren't reviewing. Every day more people are becoming aware of the importance of transparency, and I think at this point the only question is when and to what degree it comes about.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that posses the credentials to show that are not "morons" can get verified in the subreddit and will not have their comments removed.

That is true, but this happens even to credentialed users who speak on papers outside of their supposed field of expertise, even when their comment is within their area of expertise. If a mathematician points out a math error in a biology or climate science paper, it gets deleted. The mathematician rightly should know more about math than a biologist or a climate scientist, and the comment is still taken down. Also,…

> you shouldn't need credentials to demonstrate that you know something - the fact that you post something polite and useful should be enough to have your comment not be removed

The moderators of the subreddit obviously disagree. From the sides I would say it works for them.

Post reply on HN