Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

otikik wrote: post #105

rhaksw wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> science is not democratic I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. The scientific method is all about making mistakes and trying again. Discourse is all about sharing knowledge. Open societies do this effectively. Jonathan Rauch, in Kindly Inquisitors (1993) wrote, > Authoritarian systems have their intellectual giants. What they lack is the capacity to organize and exploit their masses of middling thinkers…

Not at all. For the same reason that heart surgery isn’t. Or black belt karate isn’t. Some human activities just have high skill floors. Science (at the levels we are talking about here - groundbreaking hard to understand complex stuff) is one of them. Just to clarify: I think science MUST be open for anyone and I think divulging it is critical.

> Not at all. For the same reason that heart surgery isn’t. Or black belt karate isn’t. Some human activities just have high skill floors. Science (at the levels we are talking about here - groundbreaking hard to understand complex stuff) is one of them.

Are you saying that anyone publicly discussing science on the internet should be subjected to secretive removals because publishing groundbreaking science is complex stuff? If so I strongly disagree and I find it hard to square that with your following statement,

> Just to clarify: I think science MUST be open for anyone and I think divulging it is critical.

Those two paragraphs are in direct conflict. You're saying science should be open but not everyone should be able to discuss it online without having their commentary secretly removed.???

Nobody is born a heart surgeon or karate expert. Every single one of today's experts got there by beginning somewhere near the bottom and working their way up. Some may have found their way easier than others, but that doesn't change where they began, or the general direction they had to take. Left foot, right foot, we all march, and those who had a harder time of it may be better off for making it through that (not that I want this to happen, I'm just saying it can be a result of enduring hardship).

Not to mention, science is meant to be disseminated. If you just put it up to be read rather than discussed, nobody is going to understand it. It's okay if people misinterpret things, that is part of how we learn.

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

#142

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #135

rhaksw wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

> 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.

Could be. They kind of go together. Shadow moderation often leads to heavy handed moderation. But yes it's entirely possible I'm muddling things together.

> 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”.

You lost me. How did you come to that conclusion? My gripe is with shadow moderation, and even in that case I think it should be up to the platforms to decide whether or not they want to implement it. Without further understanding of the law, I don't support government intervention. So I don't see how I've removed choice from either platforms or moderators here.

> 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.

I see a lot get ruined by secretive moderation. And, getting rid of secretive moderation does not mean getting rid of moderation altogether.

Remember, your ideological opponents have access to the same tools, and they don't have your moral safeguards. So they are inherently better at abusing whatever tool you provide to grow their following. What you want is to divide powers so that your worst enemy cannot abuse the things you have access to in order to do things to you that you would not do to them. Comprende?

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

#143

Post by dmix » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

otikik wrote: post #105

rhaksw wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> science is not democratic I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. The scientific method is all about making mistakes and trying again. Discourse is all about sharing knowledge. Open societies do this effectively. Jonathan Rauch, in Kindly Inquisitors (1993) wrote, > Authoritarian systems have their intellectual giants. What they lack is the capacity to organize and exploit their masses of middling thinkers…

Not at all. For the same reason that heart surgery isn’t. Or black belt karate isn’t. Some human activities just have high skill floors. Science (at the levels we are talking about here - groundbreaking hard to understand complex stuff) is one of them. Just to clarify: I think science MUST be open for anyone and I think divulging it is critical.

Unfortunately being a reddit on r/science doesn't require a black belt in science.

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

#144

Post by loceng » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

aliqot wrote: post #123

pluc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. There are great mods then there are people with an agenda. The reputation mods get on reddit is always one of selfish, controlling power-tripping assholes, but for the large majority that's way off. But there's also cases where it's completely justified.

They do it for free...

For "free"...

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

#145

Post by pclmulqdq » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

mariusor wrote: post #140

pclmulqdq wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It certainly works for the moderators - I agree. Whether it works for the community is another question.

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

#146

Post by hhmc » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

rhaksw wrote: post #129

hhmc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a _VERY_ selective set of sources ([3][4][5]), which you are in bad faith using a representation of the "youth"

"There are youth speaking out" should not be taken to mean "all youth". It means "some youth". It's another point of view on an issue that I'd only previously seen presented from one perspective. That's why I found it to be so interesting. I was shocked to hear it because I had no prior understanding that anything untoward was going on. Question for you, what do you think about Keira Bell's story?

Views are a currency, and not one I wish to give to GBnews.

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

#147

Post by nullc » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

Unfortunately, reveddit has stopped showing content that was removed by reddit administration-- which is also usually hidden from the user-- it's made it much harder to appeal screwups by reddit itself because you can't see the content you're being punished over.

Ever since someone started an off-site campaign to false-report bomb me I've had to screenshot every comment I make myself just so I have records when reddit inevitably screws up and suspends me for a completely innocuous comment again.

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

#148

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #75

Have you received any legal pressure to shutdown?

Not yet! I don't think there would be any basis for it. The site is all code. Data comes from Pushshift and Reddit, and even Pushshift hasn't had any trouble as far as I know.

On top of that, legal action might draw more attention to the issue. The funny thing about censorship is it ends up helping promote the censored idea; that is, once the censorship is discovered.

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

#149

Post by nullc » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

Scharkenberg wrote: post #70

Semaphor wrote: post #34

Insights I got from my own account: a) Reddit randomly decides some posts were spam and shadow-banned them O.o Content was all over the place, from links to link-free text posts. Weird. b) Low quality subs (/r/europe, /r/Germany, cryptocurrency subs) liberally shadowban all kinds of comments. All other places this shows, have comments/flairs about the removal.

Subs cannot "shadowban" users themselves. Either one banned and gets a notice, or one isn't banned at all. Comment removal initiated by moderators themselves is not "shadowbanning" - that's something Reddit's automated mechanisms (and maybe admins too) do. I think you meant "content removal without explanation" instead. I will say, however, that for about half a year now or even more, reddit's own anti-spam detection…

> Subs cannot "shadowban" users themselves.

That's not technically true, they can set an automod regexp to match the comments and set them for review and then fail to approve them.

The comments are effectively shadowbanned.

Automod rules are flexible enough to direct it at specific users, classes of users (e.g. new or low karma), or keywords in the posts.

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

#150

Post by nullc » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

jules wrote: post #51

fuckstick wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criticism of published work should assume basic competence What this is saying is that even if egregious blunders are made it is against the rules to call that out - how can I point out incompetence if I have to assume competence? I host a medical journal club - statistical incompetence in the life sciences is bountiful. > Comments dismissing established findings I’m sure defining established isn’t difficult to do/…

I once simply pointed out how an equation in a climate science paper didn't make sense because there was a unit error (there was exp(x) where x was not unitless) => removed.

Better than r/legaladvice where many of the moderators are law enforcement officers and aggressively remove good advice (including from actual attorneys) and aggressively push bad "cop law" that instructs people to take actions which are highly prejudicial to their own interests. :)

Ever once in a while I ponder how many people are unnecessarily stuck in jail because of that one subreddit then feel ill and have to stop thinking about it.