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

91–100 of 309 posts

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#91

Post by alex_g »

kiba wrote: post #85
alex_g wrote: post #82

This is a weird take. You get lots of messages from Nigerian scammers, but the solution was not to prevent people from writing freeform emails. The solution was to build powerful spam detection algorithms, make it easy for people to classify emails to help strengthen the training set, and the problem is basically solved. There's no easy answer to content moderation. There's no one size fits all solution, nor is there…

The problem isn't solved, just surpassed, given that Nigerian spammers continue to make money.

Fair, though I'm curious if the people falling for them are using email providers with quality spam filters. I'd guess it's a much older crowd that's more likely using an archaic email provider with no incentive to improve spam filters.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#92

Post by proc0 »

asciident wrote: post #71
proc0 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That will allow companies to black list you across the internet Thus giving full control of people to private entities that are increasingly not held accountable by anything or anyone. Why would we want a private entity, not elected by the people, to decide our morality? Enforcing morality is dangerous and arguably immoral since it uses force to align people's thinking, which treats everyone like children that are…

Like the credit bureaus? Seems like they've been doing this for decades already.

Yeah pretty much I think. We're definitely there as far as financial institutions, I just hope we're not on our way there with the communication and social institutions (increasingly dominated by the Internet).

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#93

Post by proc0 »

dang wrote: post #75
proc0 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only under control, I think, because it's very specific in terms of content. The weakness many social networks have is that it's basically an open platform for any discussion, and that makes it harder to put boundaries around. It makes sense to heavily restrict subject matters on sites with specialized content but general social networks are still facing the issues mentioned in the article, IMHO.

I agree that being specific about content makes things easier, but HN is not so specific. Anything intellectually interesting is on topic ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ), and that makes for a lot of long, difficult explanations - e.g.: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Sure, maybe it's not that constrained, but consider something like memes, which is expected of many sites, but definitely not here.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#94

Post by tinus_hn »

yakubin wrote: post #55
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.

Another site with moderated comments is Ars Technica. It works out great for them. On the other side there is unmoderated Phoronix, which has the worst comment section that I've ever seen.

Is it worse than YouTube comments? I have never looked at it but that has to be something..

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#95

Post by simmanian »

alex_g wrote: post #87
miki123211 wrote: post #80

I think we're looking at the issue in a completely wrong way. There's no objective definition of right or wrong in content moderation. Right and wrong is subjective, especially across cultures, and moderation should be subjective too. I believe end users should have the choice to adopt blocklists, Adblock style. Those lists could contain single posts, accounts, or even specific words. A lot of content (like flashing…

Clubhouse is not a great example of a platform that handles abuse properly. Putting the moderation burden on people is also not a solution, it's duct tape.

>Putting the moderation burden on people

I don't think GP is saying we should put the moderation burden on people. When you accept that there is no objective definition of right or wrong, you begin to see that perhaps there are ways for people to self-organize on the internet according to their values rather than being shoved into the same box like we often do today. Many people are looking for ways to efficiently and effectively organize on the internet in a more sustainable manner.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#96

Post by michaelmrose »

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…

I think lousy annoying manual moderation in smaller communities is hard to beat. Human beings have flaws but we have hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation to making small social circles work that might not work AS well in groups of hundreds or low thousands but they can be made to work acceptably.

When you say highly engaged community members I hear people who have no life who derive self importance via imaginary internet points and social position not by doing things but by running their mouths. While it claims to encourage community it discourages it by potentially punishing association. It would make people afraid of being associated with ideas others consider bad which sounds great if you imagine communities run by people that are largely or mostly good and intelligent when in fact people are largely bad selfish and stupid.

It would be ruthlessly gamed by individuals whose status would be based on their efforts to stir up drama that sounds fantastic when its directed at people like Epstein or Harvey Weinstein less so when you realize that this would be effective at silencing people regardless of guilt because people would need to as you say cut the branch loose.

I have literally never heard a worse system of meta moderation proposed.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#98

Post by michaelmrose »

crazygringo wrote: post #50
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…

Yes, I'm convinced at some point we're going to figure out an algorithm to solve content moderation with some version of crowdsourcing like this based on reputation, though I'd prefer a system based on building up trustworthiness through one's actions (consistently flagging similarly to already-trustworthy people). But the challenge is still the same one you describe -- what do you do with competing "groups" or subco…

Presumably instead of global moderation you could have pluggable meta moderation where you pick the moderators so you can have fun stuff like Moderator A whom you follow banned Bob therefore you can't see his posts or his comments on your posts but I don't follow A I follow B who believes Bob is a paragon of righteousness and so I see Bobs words everywhere and we all in effect have an even more fragmented view of the world than we have today with conversations that are widely divergent even within the same social media group or thread.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#99

Post by michaelmrose »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #56
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a pretty fantastic way to build an echo chamber.

It's funny that you comment that on HN

Which has a single front page which shows the same headlines to everyone where people who disagree can all see each others posts and we can disagree with each other so long as we can avoid being jerks to one another.

At worst you lose imaginary internet points if you say something that the group doesn't agree with.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#100

Post by simmanian »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #20
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…

That sounds like a pretty fantastic way to build an echo chamber.

I think we need to critically evaluate what we call echo chambers. The continent, country, state, city, street you live in all exhibit patterns of echo chambers. In a sense, our planet itself is an echo chamber. Every human network is an echo chamber that boosts signals to varying degrees. A lot of times, this is a good thing! Like when people come together to help each other. The real problem is when the network itself is designed to boost certain signals (e.g. outrage, controversy) over others to a point where our society breaks down. Many of today's centralized networks profit greatly from misinformation, anger, and other negative signals. IMO that is the problem we need to tackle.
Post reply on HN