291–300 of 556 posts
How does this help anything? I've actually asked. And I never got a straight answer. I figure it's some kind of moderator-loss-of-control-anxiety-reaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get where you're coming from with the academic curiosity of seeing how people think. That said, it seems you're assuming comments are simply a one-way output of different people's thought patterns, rather than a two-way process that has an effect on others. It's obvious it has a two-way effect - the point of reading and listening is to learn, and we can learn in ways that make us worse off. The idea that we should…
You can't exactly challenge ideas if the challenger ideas need to be approved or in an approved venue. It's not that long ago that the Catholic church had people executed for heresy.
Perhaps Patreon should just add comments and subscribers can comment there. Content creators could link to it and it would be read-only unless you pay.
Most edgelords aren't going to pay to play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree! Since Hacker News could also potentially be such a way to disseminate bad information we should remove all comments here too. See the problem? That's basically what you're justifying.
There are logical stopping points on the way from "all comments should be allowed" to "no comments should be allowed." One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." In fac…
The comment chain is about whether comment sections should be available or not, not individual comments. Furthermore, down the chain you'll find a person saying that they like youtube's comment sections, because it represents the way many/most people think. The post I'm replying to is saying that deplatforming is good for stopping the spread of bad information. This does not read like the person is advocating for nuance or some in between solution, because if most people say those kinds of things, then the community would decide that they have merit.
>no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments.
And who decides what is and is not morally reprehensible? If I tell Americans that letting an 8 year old play outside unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible (as it is illegal in many places in the US). If I tell Polish people that it's okay to punish parents who let their 8 year old play unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible.
Both of the stop points you brought up are basically ways to segment communities. Reddit calls this a "circlejerk".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reply is needlessly personal, are you materially affected by this issue somehow? > Would you ban beaches as well, because creeps might watch others on a beach? No, but nor would I pretend people can shower and change without cubicles, or permit the nearby village to drown during the first storm because I deluded myself in the belief there was no need for a seawall. There is no rationality to be found in an absol…
> This reply is needlessly personal, are you materially affected by this issue somehow? No, but you're saying that if we can't limit people from posting bad things then we should remove or change the ability to post. Take that same idea into real life. It's impossible to stop people from saying and doing things without excessively infringing on their freedoms and as a result people say and do bad things. You're argui…
I'm not trying to be prickly here, but I've thought quite a lot about freedoms of speech, and I believe for it to concisely work, it cannot unto itself guarantee an audience, as that would still be mandating opinion, only in the other direction. It can provide legal protections, but not protections from social ramifications, as again, this would be mandating opinion one way or the other. We can live in a free society without that freedom meaning I can help myself to my neighbor's wife. THAT is nuance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been a video on yt about a real airline pilot reviewing the sully movie [0]. The comment section is filled with people from the field, pilots, turbine technicians, etc. Even Sully's Co-pilot Jeff Skiles HIMSELF commented on the video. While there are usually tons of low quality "upvote this comment if watching in 2019" things, this thread was wonderful. And I think if the comments were hosted on a different s…
Were there any valuable comments that weren't root-level (or that wouldn't have been made as root-level comments if it were impossible to reply to comments)? I ask because I feel like you're describing the same sort of system I am in my sibling reply below: > But really, if content creators want to get "feedback", they just need a thing that's essentially like email—a separate private channel between them and each au…
Cramming everything into one flat thread has already been done in phpbb and works for small threads but big threads get into issues when you are not interested in every part of the discussion but only some.
As a Father of very young kids, I think this is nothing short of emergency. Not only commenting on kids videos should be banned, also youtube should heavily vet and tag all their kids related videos -- these days kids are hooked on watching cartoons and poems on youtube and a lot of times, there are really garbage videos targeting kids just showing little girls buying and playing with make ups, cleaning houses and le…
Man people are depressing. I'm guessing the scum bags will have to post scummy things on other forums and link to videos. At least the consumers on youtube wont be subjected to such. Incoming new challenges for reddit. Maybe its an opportunity to get rid of some more scummy communities.
New? Reddit has had this problem for ages.
Bear with me for a moment - but PageRank is the start of the problem. It's basically measuring link distance from Stanford University web site - the closer you are the more juice you get. But it assumes that a single domain is a single publisher (and so all articles on a given site should get the same google juice - the same rising tide)
But facebook (and many many other sites) lend their domains google juice to all comers - so that if you rationally want greatest reach (ie highest rank in search engine) you publish not on your domain but on facebooks (or medium etc).
But this leads to many unintended consequences- the facebook moderation problem being one.
it if we see facebook not as a monolith but as firstly a web space provider, then a indexer over that webspace and then a algorithmic feed provider, we see dramatically different ways of dealing with the problem - if we should give people webspace to put their kids pictures and share them (facebooks main use case arguably) then "normally" that space would be under the users own domain.
So why not have a more granular pagerank? Why not have google assign juice to facebook.com/paulbrian seperate to juice assigned to facebook.com/paulgraham.
Then we see no reason to host the webpages under facebook.com - if I need to "earn" my google juice just as i would on a normal domain it's no benefit
I see comments sections in a similar vein - having my comments stored on youtube es pages / domain is just not how it should be - they are my comments so they go on my server / web space and they link up to the video
That way google juice tells us which people are worth reading and which are hate filled garbage - based on their reputation.
I need to flesh this out some more but we do seem to have gone wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might be in the minority here but I enjoy the low quality youtube comments. Most people dismiss them as cancer but the reality is a lot of people think in patterns that drive these comments. I would rather be in touch with and exposed to this rather than try to pretend it doesn’t exist. It won’t ever go away, it will just be hidden.
I get where you're coming from with the academic curiosity of seeing how people think. That said, it seems you're assuming comments are simply a one-way output of different people's thought patterns, rather than a two-way process that has an effect on others. It's obvious it has a two-way effect - the point of reading and listening is to learn, and we can learn in ways that make us worse off. The idea that we should…
I think it's a better idea to give people the tools to control where they direct their attention.