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

231–240 of 309 posts

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#231

Post by HWR_14 »

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.

What's the alternative to a credit bureau? Determining the loan amount you are qualified for by a magic 8 ball or a person looking at how nicely you're dressed (and your gender, religion and ethnicity) and guessing? Or the second option, but they also take into account your paystubs, which makes it better but has similar issues.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#232

Post by HWR_14 »

justbored123 wrote: post #196
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…

That is called society. Have you ever worked in a private company? Went to a private business, like a restaurant or a shopping mall? What happens if you start insulting people and been rude and un-polite like people are in social media? You get fired or you are asked to leave. This is the reason why when you go to a new job they ask for references and call your old employers to inquire about you. The internet is goin…

> Went to a private business, like a restaurant or a shopping mall? What happens if you start insulting people and been rude and un-polite like people are in social media?

People say "it's not worth potentially getting shot or otherwise attacked to try to get that asshole to put on a mask"

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#233

Post by nl »

mkay581 wrote: post #221
asciident wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Bad credit (sometimes even wrongly attributed) can block you from jobs, mobile plans, bank accounts, credit/debit cards, renting, etc. I'd rather be blocked from Facebook than be told I can't rent an apartment or be disqualified from a job.

This is a symptom of society thinking that social media is a necessity and somehow equivalent to the real world. It's not.

This seems like it was a defensible statement in 2001 or maybe even 2011, but in 2021 I think it's hard to defend.

Is it necessary?

Well - for many people literally the only way they communicate with their friends is in group chats on social media platforms. Losing that leads to social isolation.

Is it equivalent to the real world?

Of course it isn't equivalent - as in "the same as" the real world. For many people it is much much more important since most of their life is lived via online mechanisms.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#234

Post by jp_sc »

avs733 wrote: post #136
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 i…

I think real child porn should be 100% on that list.

However, even what child porn "is" sometimes depends of the culture or even the political climate. Like with the Japanese "lolis" (erotic drawings of fictional minor-looking girls), illegal in some countries but fine in others (so far).

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#235

Post by crazygringo »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #167

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.

The quote literally says it's regarding iPhones.

Why would you stop reading after a true statement about iPhones...?

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#236

Post by monkeydreams »

The problem I have with Benedict Evans' commentary is that he is very quick to suggest that a proposed solution is wrong (especially if it impacts the FAANG execs who hang on his every word), but never offers up an alternative OR admits that a current solution might be better than no solution at all. Yes content moderation is not a scalable solution but no content moderation is far worse.

I get it, the platforms are his bread-and-butter, but at some point he needs to stop pooh-poohing the solutions others are putting up and, you know, actually suggest a solution himself.

In this article he presents the possiblity that moderation does not work in scale, and that we should stop pushing for it. Then what? Well, Benedict doesn't get into that. He suggests that change might be necessary and that it might be a complete change to a different model of interaction - but he stops short of suggesting that is might be up to the platforms (or the government) to enact that change. If he were to turn around and say "Twitter, you need to fix your shit. Stop allowing unlimited retweets of some poor shmuck's bad day tweet" then he would actually have a position worth considering.

Edit: Changed the last line because I got distracted when writing the original and forgot to finish it.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#237

Post by bryanrasmussen »

monkeydreams wrote: post #236

The problem I have with Benedict Evans' commentary is that he is very quick to suggest that a proposed solution is wrong (especially if it impacts the FAANG execs who hang on his every word), but never offers up an alternative OR admits that a current solution might be better than no solution at all. Yes content moderation is not a scalable solution but no content moderation is far worse. I get it, the platforms are…

there is the possibility with lots of problems that there are no solutions that will work, as you point out that does not mean one should not continue to try.

The analogy might be that there is no solution to the problem of the mortality, but there are quite a few ways you can work to keep from dying of a heart attack in your 40s.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#238

Post by clairity »

bryan_w wrote: post #195
clairity wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, let computers do the repeatable work and humans do the original thinking. i still haven't seen a moderation system better than slashdot, which community-sourced its moderation/meta-moderation semi-randomly. though it still had issues with gaming and spam, it seems like a good base to build from. and yet we ended up with twitter, facebook, reddit, yelp, etc. that optimize for (ad) views, not quality.

slashdot had good bones, but what it was missing was a pool of known good moderators. Without them, you end up with a death spiral as bad actors upvote and meta moderate each other and drive good mods away.

yes, perhaps an old-fashioned meatspace reputation network could be employed to bootstrap it.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#239

Post by intended »

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…

This is what is done by any experienced content moderation team, except for trying to rescue the good part.

That’s essentially editorial work, and the “good” part is subjective.

Mods also spend 90% of their time dealing with bad content, which means they end up be far more sophisticated at smelling false arguments or traps that would snare normal users.

Eventually, attackers start targeting the mod team, and the rule set - since the experience/content delta between mods and users keeps growing, attackers are able to exploit it for PR.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#240

Post by sigstoat »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #172
sigstoat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would we want a private entity, not elected by the people, to decide our morality? i got the impression from the separation of church and state that we don't generally want elected officials deciding what is or is not moral. merely what is legal.

The separation of church and state is precisely because we DO want state laws to enforce morals. We also want that enforcement to apply no matter what religion you have. At least, I do.

> The separation of church and state is precisely because we DO want state laws to enforce morals.

i look forward to your support for making the tithe mandatory.

Post reply on HN