Live data from Hacker News

Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

nytimes.com

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#21
post #4

I like the reddit and 4chan model. Content is clearly compartmentalized by topic with different rules for each subcommunity. Of course they are not totally free of moderation but it still allows a greater diversity of opinions with seemingly diametrically opposed groups existing side by side. Many of the big social networks lack compartmentalization. On the other hand twitter demonstrates that it's not necessary, jus…

Moderators have too much power in the reddit model. Subreddit's become their own lil fiefdoms... literally virtual real estate that different special interests vie for influence of. Unforuntately, minority voices are stifled in almost every single subreddit. Sure you can say people are free to make their own subreddits for those voices, but for example a community like /r/canada has a very valuable virtual real estat…

The problem isn't moderator power, it's name squatting.

Do you have a concrete suggestion for giving the moderators less power, while still ensuring that subreddits don't get overrun with trolls?

Keep in mind that physical in-world minorities can amplify their voices vastly online. Sometimes this is something we want (by allowing, e.g., African-Americans to point out systemic injustice) and sometimes it's not (Fascist goons shitposting racist propaganda and driving people off twitter.)

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderators have too much power in the reddit model. Subreddit's become their own lil fiefdoms... literally virtual real estate that different special interests vie for influence of. Unforuntately, minority voices are stifled in almost every single subreddit. Sure you can say people are free to make their own subreddits for those voices, but for example a community like /r/canada has a very valuable virtual real estat…

One problem is that the `/r/:subreddit` url creates name-squatting and the illusion of canonical forums. /r/canada is like .com: anything else looks second-rate. /r/canada2? /r/bettercanada? /r/altcanada? /r/the_canada? /r/mapleleaf? I think reddit should've gone with `/r/:username/:subreddit` to remind everyone that every subreddit is just some random person's forum, not some canonical message board on that topic. I…

That's not a bad idea, but it definitely harms discoverability, and makes it easier to impersonate known subreddits.

(It also could mean that a person deleting their account, or being banned, takes down the subreddit; it means transferring ownership becomes complicated.)

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#23
post #9

HN voting is a groupthink censor

Society is a groupthink censor. If your beliefs are too extreme in any number of directions, society will eventually shun you. Whether you think this behavior is wrong or not usually depends on how closely your beliefs match the beliefs that are currently being shunned.

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#24
post #4

I like the reddit and 4chan model. Content is clearly compartmentalized by topic with different rules for each subcommunity. Of course they are not totally free of moderation but it still allows a greater diversity of opinions with seemingly diametrically opposed groups existing side by side. Many of the big social networks lack compartmentalization. On the other hand twitter demonstrates that it's not necessary, jus…

> Of course they are not totally free of moderation If there is one thing I wish I could beat into people's heads with a stick about online discourse, is that any place free of moderation is not going to be a free speech haven, but a cesspit where the people with the most free time will dominate and drive out others. It's incredibly cheap and easy to shit up a conversation, but quite costly to have an engaging dialog…

> If there is one thing I wish I could beat into people's heads with a stick about online discourse, is that any place free of moderation is not going to be a free speech haven, but a cesspit where the people with the most free time will dominate and drive out others.

It depends. One forum where I spend some of my time has very hands-off moderation and it does have a) some quality conversations b) diversity of opinions. Of course it descends regularly in low-quality drivel, insults and/or shitposting, especially on controversial subjects, but it works.

Edit: But I can't say that it works everywehre, just that it can work.

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderators have too much power in the reddit model. Subreddit's become their own lil fiefdoms... literally virtual real estate that different special interests vie for influence of. Unforuntately, minority voices are stifled in almost every single subreddit. Sure you can say people are free to make their own subreddits for those voices, but for example a community like /r/canada has a very valuable virtual real estat…

One problem is that the `/r/:subreddit` url creates name-squatting and the illusion of canonical forums. /r/canada is like .com: anything else looks second-rate. /r/canada2? /r/bettercanada? /r/altcanada? /r/the_canada? /r/mapleleaf? I think reddit should've gone with `/r/:username/:subreddit` to remind everyone that every subreddit is just some random person's forum, not some canonical message board on that topic. I…

That would be interesting for an approach. If you add all of the r/[this] be an aggregation of everyone's r/monksy/[this]. (That would mean that the name r/[this] couldn't be posted to)

We have seen issues where cities have had terrible moderation and that people have complained about it/split off. (r/seattle and r/seattlewa sticks out, as does r/chicago, r/realchicago, r/chicagonothinggoes, r/chicagoanythinggoes)

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the unspoken sentiment behind your experience. "I took to facebook to post links to grey legal documents rather than hosting them myself because I wanted facebook to be liable; Im shocked when they told me they didn't appreciate the transfer of risk. It's literally censorship I tell you!" Freedom of speech is not, and hopefully never will be,"freedom to post on other people's servers unmoderated".

Were the Snowden documents really legally grey? The Guardian had no problem publishing them.

The Guardian was also forced to destroy copies of the files it owned by the UK government.

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#27

The product is getting restless, the customers aren't happy with their brand being next to all of this inflammatory content. This was bound to happen in an ad-supported internet.

Howard stern. It doesnt matter that people are angry. People who hated him listened to howard stern more/longer than his fans. Facebook doesnt care that people are screaming mad. That emotion is just proof of how connected they are to the platform.

Hate clicks are important for media companies, since they will generate more shares, links, discussion and controversy, which, in an ad-funded business, is good (in the short term)

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the unspoken sentiment behind your experience. "I took to facebook to post links to grey legal documents rather than hosting them myself because I wanted facebook to be liable; Im shocked when they told me they didn't appreciate the transfer of risk. It's literally censorship I tell you!" Freedom of speech is not, and hopefully never will be,"freedom to post on other people's servers unmoderated".

Were the Snowden documents really legally grey? The Guardian had no problem publishing them.

If you have to ask, they are

Re: Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech

#29
post #23
post #9

HN voting is a groupthink censor

Society is a groupthink censor. If your beliefs are too extreme in any number of directions, society will eventually shun you. Whether you think this behavior is wrong or not usually depends on how closely your beliefs match the beliefs that are currently being shunned.

Sucks for folks like Socrates doesnt it ?
Post reply on HN