91–100 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ip banning for new accounts together with creation time exceptions seems pretty good thought: almost all existing users would be unaffected. Only costs you growth untill you find some extras to put into the account creation process.
Which "extras", though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They going to abuse your platform to the extreme to promote their views. Facebook and twitter _encourage_ people to abuse their platform, that's why you can write 100 tweets from one account on a single day and they don't try to stop you at all, they know all that content will show up in their statistics, it will also make other users reply to those comments and so on; so in the end they have all incentives to keep…
IP banning is not effective in an era of disposable VPNs and Tor. I mean you could try to keep up with Tor exit nodes and VPN gateways but pretty soon you'd be banning all of Azerbaijan or something.
There are two classes of users: normal people who want to use your service and people who actively weaponize it for their own ego. Those latter users have all the time in world and can defeat any attempt to stop them. This is because, online, time is the only resource that matters. You have a limited amount of this resource. Your company has a limited amount of this resource. Your normal users have a limited amount o…
They couldn't ruin HN because of the system of voting, flagging, and high karma requirement for downvoting. And this applies in general, the only working way to moderate is distributing the effort between users who are interested in the final result. Ideally big sites would not have one single system for moderation, but multiple lists so that if two groups keep flagging each other they get separated and don't see oth…
What, I think, can be done:
1. Don't just hire expensive PhDs and hope that algorithms can correctly classify racism, etc. Hire an expensive product visionary who can build holistic approach to address moderation problem and knows what is solvable with ML and what needs pivoting to human-guided resolution.
2. Don't hire lots of cheap annotators in "Rural Inida" but hire or train fewer expensive experts and give them powerful tools that can scale their work to handle efficiently all suspicious traffic.
3. Give power to "normal" users to flag inappropriate content or behavior and loop this in a thought-out workflow with your ML and your experts on the other end.
4. Partition users and content so that bad actors and bad content get clustered away and are less easily accessible for others.
Why bigtech companies don't do it? Besides fallacy of thinking this is a "typical" ML problem, moderation is hard. It's also hard to make a business case for short-minded bosses and prove revenue increase or expenses cut. Lastly, some bigtech ones benefit a lot from abuse so they can't change immediately to stop it all.
My "truth" is not your "truth" is not someone else's "truth". None of us is wise enough to tell someone else that their truth is wrong, so expecting someone to write software that is would be asking a bit much. Filtering out opinions the majority doesn't want to pay to hear is simpler and more lucrative anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most big platforms right now have a huge mess of people tossing free bytes at each other Which of course suggests the obvious solution of not letting the bytes be free any longer. Make users who want to post on your site pay for it.
So only the people fanatical enough to pay gets to express their opinion and the regular people just don't bother?
Resources can be:
- time (come back tomorrow and next week to click this button and the account is yours)
- effort (captcha like, or maybe even better some time at meta-moderation: Is this a good answer?)
- monetary
In any case, if accounts are no longer free then having an account in good standing will be worth something.
Then, next time mods ban anyone it means there is a cost for them before they come back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ignores network effects. Significant community forks are pretty rare in Reddit's history, and launching a new subreddit is not a trivial thing to do - that goes double since you can expect mods to suppress all mention of the new community since they have absolutely no constraints on their conduct.
it happens though. example is r/libertarian vs r/goldandblack . The new subreddits are smaller because they are usually populated with users "that care", and that's a good thing. It's not like they remain obscure too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most big platforms right now have a huge mess of people tossing free bytes at each other Which of course suggests the obvious solution of not letting the bytes be free any longer. Make users who want to post on your site pay for it.
So only the people fanatical enough to pay gets to express their opinion and the regular people just don't bother?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most big platforms right now have a huge mess of people tossing free bytes at each other Which of course suggests the obvious solution of not letting the bytes be free any longer. Make users who want to post on your site pay for it.
My view on this is that it's the people reading who should be paying. We don't make novelists or musicians pay for their audience.