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

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#161

Post by wolverine876 »

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #155
wolverine876 wrote: post #140

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…

I think a clever mod will realize that they are not the Supreme Court. They are certainly not the best judge out there. Just clicking accounts and comments out of existence wont solve misinformation - it will just make the mod a tyrant. I know for a fact if i were moderating, there would be few safe users.

> I think a clever mod will realize that they are not the Supreme Court. They are certainly not the best judge out there. Just clicking accounts and comments out of existence wont solve misinformation - it will just make the mod a tyrant.

We're not talking about prison and the law of the land; we're making decisions about the disposition of some comments on an Internet forum. Far more consequential decisions are made without any due process - for example, managers decide on whether people will keep their jobs; they are 'tyrants'.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#162

Post by Guest19023892 »

proc0 wrote: post #70
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.

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 think when the content becomes too broad then tribalism becomes more apparent as people start to form separate groups within the community. This creates a lot of drama as the tribes are forced to be under one roof.

When the content is more specific, like PC master race, or people that drive VW bugs, then the community identifies itself as a single tribe, and they tend to treat each other well.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#163

Post by alex_g »

pdonis wrote: post #133
alex_g wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because not everyone has competent internet skills.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#164

Post by dsr_ »

kingsuper20 wrote: post #34

Any ex-Usenet moderators out there? I don't remember this being such a huge deal, and there was always the alt groups.

Current Usenet moderator here, of an exceedingly low traffic group.

In the last year I've only had to kill two posts, both from the same troll.

On the other hand, I use my personal killfile quite liberally.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#165

Post by alex_g »

andrew_v4 wrote: post #137
alex_g wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, and that's not what I said.

Clubhouse is not just private phone calls. It's a social network.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#166

Post by alex_g »

Zak wrote: post #139
alex_g wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 see the former just as a subset of the latter.

ie Twitter is huge, but there are sub-communities that exist within it (some well managed, others not so much), and Twitter is building community features to that point.

Twitter can certainly do a better job of moderating its sub-communities, taking into account shared values and context, but I still don't see how the solution is to have users deal with content moderation.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#167

Post by _carbyau_ »

Uh, I gave up reading from here: "On an iPhone, an app can’t run in the background, watch what you do, and steal your bank details, because the move to a sandboxed model means applications can’t run in the background and watch what you do."

Maybe that applies to iPhones but Android certainly allows it.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#168

Post by dec0dedab0de »

croutonwagon wrote: post #108
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…

I think there a fine line between these and curated lists (which most would use) that create echo chambers and comfirmation bias (which many platforms have). I like the methods this site uses over others quite frankly and that seems to be quite a bit of human moderation to get to it. But i think scale also has something to do with it. Reddit was much like this site in its earlier days.

In its earlier days reddit was a bunch of bots talking to themselves. HN works because the official moderation is more of a nudge than a fist, the community enforces its own standards, and it's a relatively small niche.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#169

Post by [deleted] »

croutonwagon wrote: post #108
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…

I think there a fine line between these and curated lists (which most would use) that create echo chambers and comfirmation bias (which many platforms have). I like the methods this site uses over others quite frankly and that seems to be quite a bit of human moderation to get to it. But i think scale also has something to do with it. Reddit was much like this site in its earlier days.

[deleted]

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#170

Post by alex_g »

rocqua wrote: post #126
alex_g wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> based on shared values and context. That's exactly the point GP was trying to make. That people should be able to organize in groups of shared values and context. Rather than there being a rather large rough mono-culture of moderation policies.

They can organize by shared values and contexts. What moderation monoculture is preventing that?
Post reply on HN