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

Is content moderation a dead end?

ben-evans.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 309 posts

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#21

Post by Etheryte »

yesOkButt wrote: post #5
anyfoo wrote: post #4

Obviously not, since we’re discussing it on a site with content moderation right now that, in my opinion, works much better than sites without.

HN is hardly as diverse a site to moderate as YouTube and Reddit Should all forums rules conform to HN?

Au contraire, I'd argue HN is a very diverse site but it's the moderation by both users and moderators that makes it seem orderly and uniform. There are many stories that get flagged a-la blogspam, low quality, clickbait etc, and same with comments. Those that don't have merit by the community don't reach the wider audience. I think the conception that HN is uniform is a somewhat common misunderstanding, as evidenced by discussions on supposedly-trolls and the like: it isn't usually the case that someone is shilling or trolling, more often than not it's just someone with a different world view.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#22

Post by wpietri »

Sigh. A "certain level of bad behaviour on the internet and on social might just be inevitable" has been an excuse since the beginning. I worked on the first web-based chat, bianca.com, and I heard it back then. More recently, I worked on anti-abuse at Twitter a few years back and hear the same talking point. Now I work on the problem at a not-for-profit, and it's still a talking point. Ignoring that the social media landscape has shifted dramatically over the decades, as have the technologies and our understanding of the problem.

It was always a terrible point, but it's especially ridiculous to see techno-utopians turn techno-fatalists in an eyeblink. The same people will go right from "innovation will save the world" to "I guess progress has now stopped utterly". And what they never grapple with is who is bearing the brunt of them giving up. I promise you it's not venture capitalist and rich guy Ben Evans who will be experiencing the bulk of bad behavior. It's easy enough for him to sacrifice the safety of others, I suppose, but to me it seems sad and hollow.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#23

Post by renewiltord »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

Lobste.rs uses a similar tree model. It is invitation only and if you invite bad people repeatedly, you will get smooshed.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#24

Post by tomcam »

cryptoz wrote: post #12
tomcam wrote: post #7

We are lying to ourselves, and we are doing it through colonialization writ large, once again. People who use Twitter and Facebook seem to be completely unaware that thousands of content moderators in the Philippines are being subjected to images of utter depredation and cruelty by the minute because we refuse to take responsibility ourselves. History will not look well on what we did to these these heroic underpaid…

> In my view the only proper way to handle content moderation is that every user of these “free“ social media platforms over the age of 18 should should be required to moderate some proportion every month to understand what’s actually going on. Does that mean no vetting at all of the moderators? Anybody can become a moderator? But then you have QAnon in large numbers moderating content on like the CNN Facebook page o…

Those are great points. I believe that there should be essentially no censorship at all, subject to First Amendment restrictions. Posts could be hidden to people based on age, political, or other preferences, but would always be accessible to adult users willing to sign a waiver.

I believe very much that bad material no matter how disgusting is best handled through public exposure, not censorship.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#25

Post by denimnerd42 »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #13
cryptoz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies. In my opinion, if you can't hire enough people to moderate without going bankrupt, then bankrupt you go! Would this mean we can't have social media? Maybe. Probably for the best. But you can't moderate then you go out of business. That's the way it should be. Probably then people would find a way to moderate and stay afloat.

That would apply to every website with a comments section, sadly. I think the solution to this is smaller, more isolated groups -- with limited edges between. Back to email threads and Mumble servers, imo. The downside is we'll all be living in filter bubbles, but I think any shared community with a common value (like a video game) is better than some ginormous platform like Facebook.

I am really disappointed that all the php bulletin board forums I used to visit as a teen and young adult have all died off or been sold to an advertising conglomerate and most of the users have fled to Facebook groups. Facebook is just not the same as a forum. The quality of posts is lower, the reposting is much higher, and the sense of community is actually lost.

Facebook has even killed craigslist. Or at least greatly reduced the usefulness.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#26

Post by mdoms »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

Sounds like a way to create highly entrenched filter bubbles.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#27

Post by karpierz »

cortesoft wrote: post #19
PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

Also, if there is a severe penalty for vouching for bad people, but not much gain for vouching for someone, will you end up with no one wanting to vouch for anyone else?

Generally the benefit of vouching for someone is that they join the community, and you personally want them to join the community.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#28

Post by cblconfederate »

Not just content moderation but also app moderation. And moderation has gone hand-in-hand with vertical integration which is bad for innovation. Soon facebook will be writing people's posts for them (because you can't trust people with keyboards) and apple will be delivering a computer together with the software soldered in a SoC. Both solutions will be bad for innovation though, they 'll be making a very fast horse, but both will miss the next big thing.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#29

Post by root_axis »

The system works as it is. Each website does its best to moderate content without harming the business. From a business perspective, it'd be ideal to never moderate content, because more viral content means more money, but advertisers, governments, and users have a problem with some content, so the websites have to take a more nuanced approach to balancing the desires of these groups. At the end of the day, there is no perfect solution, but that's ok, the web is a federated network of websites and each node can set their own priorities with respect to the interests they determine make the most sense for them, leaving the users and advertisers the freedom to use as few or as many websites as suit their own prerogatives.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#30

Post by mdoms »

tomcam wrote: post #24
cryptoz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my view the only proper way to handle content moderation is that every user of these “free“ social media platforms over the age of 18 should should be required to moderate some proportion every month to understand what’s actually going on. Does that mean no vetting at all of the moderators? Anybody can become a moderator? But then you have QAnon in large numbers moderating content on like the CNN Facebook page o…

Those are great points. I believe that there should be essentially no censorship at all, subject to First Amendment restrictions. Posts could be hidden to people based on age, political, or other preferences, but would always be accessible to adult users willing to sign a waiver. I believe very much that bad material no matter how disgusting is best handled through public exposure, not censorship.

How do you deal with misinformation? Anti vax misinformation could literally devastate an entire society if given enough oxygen. Are your free speech ideals more important than the health of an entire economy and hundreds of thousands of lives at risk?
Post reply on HN