Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#61

Post by skybrian »

ue_ wrote: post #53
skybrian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan started some popular memes, but most people don't actually hang out there. Communities with better moderation are apparently more popular.

I thought 4chan was the largest forum on the Internet, and in fact I remember when 4chan displayed the total amount of live content on their servers as being 100GB. Now it's more than 1300GB. 4chan thus seems to have become more popular. People really do hang out on 4chan, though it's lost some share recently to 8chan, but 4chan is certainly a very large forum, the 200k+ current users, as displayed on their homepage…

I meant compared to the really large scale social networks.

I don't know how accurate this is, but to put some numbers on it, Reddit seems to be #9 and Twitter #11 according to Alexa [1] and 4chan is rated much lower [2].

Although, Hacker News ranks higher than I expected [3], which seems suspicious. Perhaps there's a better way to measure it?

[1] http://www.alexa.com/topsites [2] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/4chan.com [3] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ycombinator.com

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#62

Post by wcummings »

ue_ wrote: post #49
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says 4chan's lax moderation hasn't hurt it? A toxic community doesn't mean one that doesn't exist.

Actually I'd say it has hurt it. Perceived excessive moderation on various boards is why people left to go to 8chan, where you can make and moderate your own boards, so long as all the content is legal. I'd rather have no moderation than lax moderation, which is why I'm in favor of decentralizing imageboards; the nntpchan software, which is an imageboard over nntp, is very good for this. Perhaps some system using bit…

Most people are not fans of unmoderated message boards which is why 8chan is the fringe of the fringe.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#63

Post by wcummings »

ue_ wrote: post #58
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan's moderators are in an unenviable position. For example, a large number of users left because the moderators put their foot down and decided that the site would not be the base for a widespread Internet harassment campaign. Are the users haemorrhaged from that to the detriment, or the benefit of the site?

That's largely a matter of opinion, and you must factor in what counts as a detriment or benefit, which varies with 4chan's goals. Arguably 4chan doesn't really have a goal, though some (particularly the alt-right type people) would say it's a detriment, and people like me or some users of non-political boards think it's a benefit, as one of the large concerns is that /pol/ is infecting other boards, despite the fact…

"Containment" boards are pure fantasy, they just give the worst users a place to coordinate their attacks on other boards.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#64

Post by wcummings »

ue_ wrote: post #53
skybrian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan started some popular memes, but most people don't actually hang out there. Communities with better moderation are apparently more popular.

I thought 4chan was the largest forum on the Internet, and in fact I remember when 4chan displayed the total amount of live content on their servers as being 100GB. Now it's more than 1300GB. 4chan thus seems to have become more popular. People really do hang out on 4chan, though it's lost some share recently to 8chan, but 4chan is certainly a very large forum, the 200k+ current users, as displayed on their homepage…

4chan makes almost $0, for all the time moot poured into it and all its supposed users. Moderation or lack thereof is probably why the ad space is so worthless. Its silly to compare it to Facebook.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#65

Post by trowawee »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #40
joefkelley wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan has moderation. Of course they draw the line in a very different place, but they definitely do moderate.

Yeah, I flubbed the question. Let's try again: Why is it possible for 4chan to have the line far afield of what we'd normally think of as acceptable behavior? It's not only survived, but prospered. A naive explanation is that only awful people go there, and there are a large number of those types. But that'd be mistaken. I don't know, but it seems like an interesting question.

I guess I'd take some issue with the claim that it has prospered; it's survived, but according to every report I've ever seen, it's never actually made money. As for why it's stayed alive, given the anonymization, it's hard to draw significant conclusions about the community there without having access to 4chan's own analytics, but my suspicion is that the number of people who are long-time contributors to the site are actually relatively few. I'm biased, but based on the people I know who were or are 4chan users and my own personal experience with the site, I suspect most users start using it young, probably in their teens, see their highest level of involvement there over the next few years after they join, then drift away from it. That was the pattern I experienced, and the pattern I saw repeat in a lot of other people. There's a constant influx, but it's not what you would think of as a contiguous community (unless you want to get into some Ship of Theseus questions about what defines a community). 4chan has some of the hallmarks of other web communities, but it diverges from somewhere like HN, Metafilter, or even Reddit by virtue of that lack of continuity. You can survive for a long time on suburban teenagers who want somewhere to play-act as nihilists, but that's never going to be a demographic that produces much by way of value.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#67

Post by delinka »

pottersbasilisk wrote: post #42
afuchs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking for proof that a speaker has a right to force other people to listen to their argument?

any legal precedent one way or another. Ive heard of free speech but nothing either way about a right to be heard.

That's because there's no "right to be heard." Just because we have a right to speak freely doesn't mean we have a right to be listened to. You might be free to say whatever you like, but everyone else is free to ignore you; owners of publishing platforms are free to not publish your recorded words.

As I said, freedom of speech does not automatically transfer into a right to be heard.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#68

Post by ouid »

adiabatty wrote: post #66
ouid wrote: post #22

Why is there so much emphasis on the credibility of the threat? Why not just blanket remove all explicit threats? Establishing credibility is impossibly hard.

Most (≈99.99%?) death threats aren't at all serious.

Every death threat is serious. Not many result in death, but that's not how we define serious is it?

More importantly, I can't come up with a reasonable argument that it's ever constructive to the conversation to be allowed to threaten someone.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#69

Post by sillysaurus3 »

skybrian wrote: post #61
ue_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought 4chan was the largest forum on the Internet, and in fact I remember when 4chan displayed the total amount of live content on their servers as being 100GB. Now it's more than 1300GB. 4chan thus seems to have become more popular. People really do hang out on 4chan, though it's lost some share recently to 8chan, but 4chan is certainly a very large forum, the 200k+ current users, as displayed on their homepage…

I meant compared to the really large scale social networks. I don't know how accurate this is, but to put some numbers on it, Reddit seems to be #9 and Twitter #11 according to Alexa [1] and 4chan is rated much lower [2]. Although, Hacker News ranks higher than I expected [3], which seems suspicious. Perhaps there's a better way to measure it? [1] http://www.alexa.com/topsites [2] http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/4chan.…

There's a chance HN could be artificially compressing the number of upvotes site-wide in order to maintain the illusion of smallness. Reddit did this same thing for nearly a decade. E.g. Obama's AMA only appeared to have 14k upvotes even though in reality hundreds of thousands of people voted on it.

It'd be harder to get away with on HN, but maintaining the illusion of a tight-knit community for as long as possible is pretty crucial to the site's success.

Re: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence

#70

Post by pottersbasilisk »

henrikschroder wrote: post #52
pottersbasilisk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I havent heard of the right to be heard, but most people know of free speech. So where are you getting the idea of the right to be heard ? Is it a legal idea, your personal idea, a philosophical idea ?

Are you trying to derail, or are you seriously not understanding that there is no right to be heard, it's a thing GP made up on the spot to illustrate what free speech is not?

Look Im not lawyer. But I do know free speech is something extraordinary legalistic in america so Im asking for clarification.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-res...

https://www.thefire.org/free-speech-includes-the-right-not-j...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/who-is-entitle...

A google search showed tons of different opinions and views on what I originally thought was a simple view.

So no its not as simple as people are claiming or saying

Post reply on HN