Live data from Hacker News

Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

twitter.com

161–170 of 975 posts

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#161

Just add a dislike button and put controversial tweets collapsed at the bottom. It works well for reddit. Let the community moderate themselves.

Reddit tried to just let communities moderate themselves. It resulted in rampant child pornography, doxxing, death threats, gory violence etc. It epitomised the worst of humanity. Now the Reddit admins keep a watch on moderators and if their subreddits do not meet site-wide standards they are replaced.

I think it's sad that this seems to be getting so many downvotes. You don't have to agree, but this was helpful commentary.

Reddit definitely had all of these issues, and they were handled horribly.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, really. I never see 'recommended' or 'so-and-so liked...' in my feed.

I had to create a new account after losing mine, and without following many people it seems like easily 30-50% of my feed is recommended content.

There are "home" and "newest" feeds. I agree it's shitty that the default shows this stuff, but you just have to switch it over to "newest."

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#163
post #13

Every single social media platform that has ever existed makes the same fundamental mistake. They believe that they just have to remove or block the bad actors and bad content and that will make the platform good. The reality is everyone , myself included, can be and will be a bad actor. How do you build and run a "social media" product when the very act of letting anyone respond to anyone with anything is itself the…

The reality is everyone, myself included, can be and will be a bad actor. Based on this premise we can conclude that the best way to improve Reddit and Twitter is to block everyone.

You hit the nail on the head, but maybe the other way around.

"Block" and "Mute" are the Twitter user's best friends. They keep the timeline free of spam, be it advertisers, or the growth hackers creating useless threads of Beginner 101 info and racking up thousands of likes.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#164

"there will be NO relation between the topic of the content and whether you moderate it, because itʻs the specific posting behavior thatʻs a problem" some interesting thoughts from Yishan, a novel way to look at the problem.

I thought this point was overstated, twitter certainly has some controversial content related rules and while as the CEO of Reddit he may have been mostly fighting macro battles, there are certainly content related things that both networks censor.

I think the unstated caveat would be 'anything illegal' but yes, the point was overstated, though, I think, still stands

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#165

I'm amazed at the number of people in this thread who are annoyed that someone would insert mention of a carbon capture initiative into an unrelated discussion. The author is clearly tired of answering the same question, as stated in the first tweet, and is desperately trying to get people to think more critically about the climate crisis that is currently causing the sixth mass extinction event in the history of the…

The simple fact of the matter is that too many people are either resigned to a Hobbesian future of resource wars, or profiting too much from the status quo to go beyond a perfunctory level of concern.

$44bn of real-world cash was just spent on Twitter, and HN users alone have generated tens of thousands of comments on the matter.

How many climate tech related stories will have the same level of interest?

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsolicited phone calls are somewhat illegal, but it's dependent on circumstances. It's the same with email spam and mail spam. One person's spam is another person's cold call. Where do you draw the line? Is mailing a flier with coupons spam? Technically yes, but some people find value in it. In the US, spam is protected speech, but as always, no company is required to give anybody a platform.

> In the US, spam is protected speech, but as always, no company is required to give anybody a platform. Commercial speech in the US is not protected speech and may be subject to a host of government regulation [0]. The government has broad powers to regulate the time, place, and content of commercial speech in ways that it does not for ordinary speech. [0] See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech

Not all spam is commercial.

In fact, US legislators specifically made political spam legal in the CAN-SPAM bill.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#167
post #11

Reading these threads on twitter is like listening to a friend having a bad mdma trip replaying his whole emotional life to you in a semi incoherent diarrhea like stream of thoughts Please write a book, or at the very least an article... posting on twitter is like writing something on a piece of paper, showing it to your best friend and worst enemy before throwing it in the trash

You do sound a bit like my dad complaining about youngsters reading kindle.

I read long twitter threads often, you get used to it

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit tried to just let communities moderate themselves. It resulted in rampant child pornography, doxxing, death threats, gory violence etc. It epitomised the worst of humanity. Now the Reddit admins keep a watch on moderators and if their subreddits do not meet site-wide standards they are replaced.

I think it's sad that this seems to be getting so many downvotes. You don't have to agree, but this was helpful commentary. Reddit definitely had all of these issues, and they were handled horribly.

Digg handled things horribly. Reddit seems to have done just fine.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#169
post #163
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is everyone, myself included, can be and will be a bad actor. Based on this premise we can conclude that the best way to improve Reddit and Twitter is to block everyone.

You hit the nail on the head, but maybe the other way around. "Block" and "Mute" are the Twitter user's best friends. They keep the timeline free of spam, be it advertisers, or the growth hackers creating useless threads of Beginner 101 info and racking up thousands of likes.

After using several communications tools over the past couple of decades (BBSes, IRC, Usenet, AIM, plus the ones kids these days like), I'm convinced blocking and/or muting is required for any digital mass communication tool anyone other than sociopaths would use.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#170
I like the idea that you don't want to moderate content, but behavior. And it let me to these thoughts. I'm curious about your additions to these thoughts.

Supply moderation of psychoactive agents never worked. People have a demand to alter the state of their consciousness, and we should try to moderate demand in effective ways. The problem is not the use of psychoactive agents, it is the abuse. And the same applies to social media interaction which is a very strong psychoactive agent [1]. Nevertheless it can be useful. Therefore we want to fight abuse, not use.

I would like to put up to discussion the usage and extension of techniques for demand moderation in the context of social media interactions which we know to somewhat work already in other psychoactive agents. Think something like drugs education in schools, fasting rituals, warning labels on cigarettes, limited selling hours for alcohol, trading food stamps for drug addicts etc.

For example, assuming the platform could somehow identify abusive patterns in the user, it could

- show up warning labels that their behavior might be abusive in the sense of social media interaction abuse

- give them mandatory cool-down periods

- trick the allostasis principle of their dopamine reward system by doing things intermittently, e.g. by only randomly letting their posts to go through to other users, or only randomly allow them to continue reading the conversation (maybe only for some time), or only randomly shadow ban some posts

- make them read documents about harmful social media interaction abuse

- hint to them how abusive patterns in other people look like

- give limited reading or posting credits (e.g. "Should I continue posting in this flamewar thread and then not post somewhere else where I find it more meaningful at another time?")

- etc.

I would like to hear your opinions about this in a sensible discussion.

_________

[1] Yes, social media interaction is a psychoactive and addictive agent, just like any other drug or your common addiction like overworking yourself, but I digress. People use social media interactions to among others raise their anger, to feed their addiction to complaining, to feel a high of "being right"/owning it up to the libs/nazis/bigots/idiots etc., to feel like they learned something useful, to entertain themselves, to escape from reality etc. Many people suffer from compulsively or at least habitual abuse of social media interactions, which has been shown by numerous studies (Sorry, to lazy to find a paper now to cite). Moreover the societal effects of abuse of social media interactions and their dynamics and influence on democratic politics are obviously detrimental.

Post reply on HN