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

131–140 of 309 posts

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#131

Post by [deleted] »

alex_g wrote: post #118
seriousquestion wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rooms aren't created by Clubhouse, so it makes sense for the creator of the room to moderate it according to the goals of their particular room. It's not a burden because it's not an open forum like HN or Reddit, where anyone can talk. The moderators have to specifically choose who gets to speak and can simply drop them back to the audience if a problem.

Yeah but if the goal of the room is to foment hatred and target harassment at an individual who isn't in the room, that's still abuse.

[deleted]

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#132

Post by [deleted] »

rocqua wrote: post #125
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…

We used to have editors at newspapers who did this. They had an opinion, tried to be objective, but called out excesses. Sometimes this went wrong, see yellow journalism. One thing that is different now is that you no longer have a say in who edits your newsfeed. You can't very easily switch news-feed. I feel like the variation in opinions in modern-day editors is much smaller than the variation in opinions in societ…

[deleted]

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#133

Post by pdonis »

alex_g wrote: post #91
kiba wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'm curious if the people falling for them are using email providers with quality spam filters.

I'm curious why the people falling for them need a spam filter to recognize them as scams. I still see an occasional one slip through my email provider's spam filter, and I've never had any problem figuring out that they were scams.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#134

Post by marcusverus »

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.

This is very different. Credit bureaus are amoral. They're just gathering data and doing math.

GP is talking about a world where you can't shop on Amazon because you committed wrongthink on Twitter.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#135

Post by pdonis »

motohagiography wrote: post #104

It's hard to separate content moderation from the problem of Evil. Low entropy evil is easy to automate out, high entropy and sophisticated evil can convince you it doesn't exist. This is also the basic problem of growing communities, where you want to attract new people while still providing value to your core group, while still managing both attrition and predators. What content moderation problems have proven is t…

> In the hundreds of forums I've used over decades, the best ones were moderated by starting with a high'ish bar to entry.

I've had the same experience. And at the other end of the spectrum, the reason Facebook, Twitter, etc. have such problems with moderation is that there is no bar to entry--anyone can sign up and post. With what results, we see.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#136

Post by avs733 »

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…

[obvious disclaimer of I am NOT advocating for child porn]

Why would spam, phishing, child porn be the 'universal' ones?

If you are making an argument that it should all be opt in...then it should all be opt in. Otherwise, this is the same drawing of a moral line that we all tend to do where we call ours obvious and others subjective. Maybe some people want the spam? Shouldn't the spammers have the ability to share it in case people want it?

My point isn't to argue for those things...its to say if we just accept that content moderation is subjective...we can't then label some things as subjective and some things as not, the framework should just be - laws of the state/country/equivalent structure. Those provide mechanisms (theoretically but more soundly) for feedback that corporations do not and frankly should not on the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable content.

C.f., Nazi imagery in most of Europe.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#137

Post by andrew_v4 »

alex_g wrote: post #118
seriousquestion wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rooms aren't created by Clubhouse, so it makes sense for the creator of the room to moderate it according to the goals of their particular room. It's not a burden because it's not an open forum like HN or Reddit, where anyone can talk. The moderators have to specifically choose who gets to speak and can simply drop them back to the audience if a problem.

Yeah but if the goal of the room is to foment hatred and target harassment at an individual who isn't in the room, that's still abuse.

Does this apply to a phone call? To a zoom call with five people in it? Should trying to stop someone from doing something, even if abhorrent, in private, really be a priority? I can only see this ending badly. If there is a link to real world crimes, sure, intercepting a discussion is one method available to detect / deter / deny / disrupt, just like a wiretap. But (and maybe I misunderstand your comment) beginning with the idea that we should try and prevent conversations we find abhorrent from happening is, well, abhorrent.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#138

Post by wombatpm »

marcusverus wrote: post #134
asciident wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is very different. Credit bureaus are amoral. They're just gathering data and doing math. GP is talking about a world where you can't shop on Amazon because you committed wrongthink on Twitter.

Oh Amazon will take your money, you just won’t be able to write product reviews

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#139

Post by Zak »

alex_g wrote: post #103
simmanian wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 an…

"Right or wrong" maybe not, but for well managed communities on the internet, there are objective definitions for appropriate and inappropriate, based on shared values and context. If you leave it up to each individual to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate, and provide them with the tools to block content they consider inappropriate, that's a burden on them, because you're not taking care of it at the commun…

You and the toplevel commenter may be talking about two different kinds of systems.

You are describing "well managed communities". HN is arguably one of those. Many topic-specific forums, IRC channels, mailing lists, and communities on platformy things that seek to reinvent those are as well. They tend to be centered around a topic or purpose and have rules, guidelines, and social norms that facilitate that purpose.

I think the toplevel comment is talking about global many-to-many networks where people connect based on both pre-existing social relationships and shared interests (often with strangers). Those require a different model, and centralized moderation based on a single set of rules is probably not the best one.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#140

Post by wolverine876 »

People with moderating experience:

Why not just delete [most] offending comments, immediately, no questions asked (and ban repeat offenders)? For maybe 95% (as a wild guess), there's no question - it's clear that the comment is inflammatory or disinformation or whatever. It surprises me that I see so many of them permitted in so many forums, even here on HN. Why tolerate them? One click and move on.

Tell people about the policy, of course, and if the comment is partly offending and partly constructive, delete it. They can re-post the constructive part. It's not hard to behave - we all do it in social situations. If you want your comment to be retained, don't do stupid stuff.

------------

Also, it's telling IMHO that in this conversation among people relatively sophisticated in this issue, organized disinformation is barely discussed. It's well-known, well-documented, and common, yet we seem to close our eyes to it. It's a different kind of moderation challenge.

Post reply on HN