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

261–270 of 309 posts

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#261

Post by etblg »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #216
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also means that people with large amounts of disposable income can get away with not following the rules.

SA does eventually permaban people

There's a guy called Seraph84 who is already permaban'd, multiple times a month he will buy new accounts, make one or two posts on each, get immediately permaban'd again, and repeat this process.

So it's not a foolproof system, but at-least it can help keep the lights on for people who are terminally online (unless they do CC chargebacks).

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#262

Post by seriousquestion »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #247
seriousquestion wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube comments are actually pretty good these days, I find.

Most comments on YouTube are vacuous, it's not worth wading through them.

You are right, not worth scrolling down beyond the top handful.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#263

Post by dmos62 »

rocqua wrote: post #123
dmos62 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vouching system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust I've not examined it closely, but Web of Trust follows that train of thought at least to an extent.

"Trust" in this context means "I believe this key indeed matches this identity". Nothing more is meant by that.

The feature I'm talking about is direct vs indirect trust in WOT. If an indirect trustee is deemed untrustworthy, it may say something about the chain of direct trust links leading to him. If someone I introduce into the trustee network turns out malicious, I might get somehow penalized, as well as others I introduced. I realise WOT is designed with authentication in mind, but maybe it could serve more general trust systems. Not sure.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#264

Post by joshspankit »

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.

It’s my personal opinion as someone who has watched the internet “grow up”, that at some point we are better off to mandate a percentage of “echo chamber busting” across all platforms.

Even if it’s 3%, the algorithms can promote not just the polar opposite opinion (which is currently done to create “sticky” polarity), but the things that let people say “huh, I never thought of it that way”, or “I never knew that there were people in that situation” because those lead to empathy, understanding, and recognizing the humanity of people in other “groups”.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#265

Post by proc0 »

sigstoat wrote: post #127
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…

> 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.

Right, ideally it would work that way, however shifting that over to non-elected and private entities with zero accountability is even worse. At least if government is babysitting it's partially people's fault for voting that way, but I agree even elected officials should know not to force morality on the people.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#266

Post by andrewflnr »

kiba wrote: post #193
alex_g wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not everyone has competent internet skills.

I don't think it's internet skills per se, given that scams exist since before the internet.

Part of internet skills is increasing your prior that someone is lying to you.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#267

Post by wussboy »

joshspankit wrote: post #264
croutonwagon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s my personal opinion as someone who has watched the internet “grow up”, that at some point we are better off to mandate a percentage of “echo chamber busting” across all platforms. Even if it’s 3%, the algorithms can promote not just the polar opposite opinion (which is currently done to create “sticky” polarity), but the things that let people say “huh, I never thought of it that way”, or “I never knew that ther…

I generally agree with you. I think a better solution would be reputation-based. An account created 4 seconds ago that posts dozens of videos that people generally find distasteful should wallow in obscurity. Still there? Yes. Findable? Yes. Promoted? No.

I recommend this solution because I think this is generally how human societies have traditionally worked. Humans have always been free to say whatever they want (meaning, it's physically possible to say any words), but there has often been a penalty for promoting ludicrous or hateful ideas: You weren't respected and were often ignored. If you gathered followers around you who threatened to become violent, you were removed. I don't see why the same system couldn't work for content moderation.

Of course, the fundamental problem is that controversial things trigger emotional responses which trigger engagement, and that's what social media's business model relies on.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#268

Post by croutonwagon »

sthnblllII wrote: post #227
croutonwagon wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See that take I don't agree with. There are plenty of communities where you can disagree without flaming. Where discussion and dissent can be had and heard without having to alienate or "pwn" them. You don't have to just ignore or exclude minority viewpoints to be a community. Most of the more welcoming communities typically embrace those as a matter of fact, and try to educate or evolve based on challenging their vi…

In a Christian community you can't deny Christ. In a Dungeons and Dragons community you cant call everyone a nerd and tell them to play Call of Duty. In the Black community you can't be a white woman with hair extensions and claim be to be the victim of discrimination. Communities exist specifically because they exclude people from them. Sometimes thats good and sometimes its bad but attacking the very concept of a g…

>In a Christian community you can't deny Christ.

There are plenty that do. Maybe some of the fundies dont...But the entire point of Christianity is to welcome non-believers and convert them. And plenty of Protestants and even most Roman Catholic congregations I have seen are very much that way.

Especially when a school is involved.

> In a Dungeons and Dragons community you cant call everyone a nerd and tell them to play Call of Duty.

Well of course not. That would be like...the opposite of my point.

>In the Black community you can't be a white woman with hair extensions and claim be to be the victim of discrimination.

Of course not. But having grown up relatively poor and in a minority of my neighborhood at that time, if you were to ask anyone from my neighborhood if i was a part of THAT community I bet they would say yes. And they absolutely were willing to fight with me/defend me when i was singled out for my, get this, race. I know plenty of members of the black community that are fine to sit down and listen to my opinions on some certain topics, again its all about respect and approach. I know plenty that would hear me out and dismiss me, and plenty that would shut it down (and i wouldnt even bother voicing in the first place).

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#269

Post by dane-pgp »

michaelmrose wrote: post #101
dane-pgp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another reason to vouch for someone is that you trust their judgement and want them to have more power in the system to hide content that you personally don't want to see. It's true that this will lead to echo chambers, but by looking at vouching relationships rather than the contents of posts, it should be easier to detect the echo chambers and give people the opportunity to expand their horizons.

In a system that tends to reward closing your horizons with a sense of safety and belonging the trend wont be towards expanding horizons. Don't build systems that don't work like you want them to in practice because in theory people could use them better.

Our existing systems already generate echo chambers (due to the emergent properties of algorithms and/or the choices people make when they consume media), and that's in the best case where your horizons aren't just set by the political leanings of the employees of the companies that run the systems that provide most of the content.

As long as people could choose different communities that had moderation policies which suited their members, it would allow those who wanted to hear other perspectives to do so, and might make people aware of what sort of echo chamber they are in.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#270

Post by Dracophoenix »

powerapple wrote: post #249
closeparen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Echo chambers and confirmation bias are also known as community. I know everyone wants to “do something” but other people occupying communities whose identities and norms and beliefs you don’t like is a problem of humanity, not the internet.

Exactly. Internet has been able to connect people, so each community become larger and louder. But the real issue is that the voice of majority is actually missing. It is like if you bought a doughnut from a shop, some will say it loud it is wonderful, if you have complains you probably will make sure you say it loud and clear, the majority people happy with it will just walk away silently. This way, the voice you he…

That's because there's no such thing as a majority on the internet. It's the purest form of the marketplace of ideas. And like any such marketplace, fads and ideas, behemoths or not, come and go. That's why it's important not to dive in with expectations that you're getting a true or definitive reading on issue. Outside of the most brilliant scholarly papers, one rarely does. Even in the most viewpoint-neutral and factually correct conversations, pieces and snippets are all you get.
Post reply on HN