Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation • Hacker News Board

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#181

Post by LegitShady » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:32 PM UTC

He was CEO of a company that has volunteer moderators, what he knows about handling moderation is tainted by the way reddit is structured. Also, reddit's moderation is either heavy handed or totally ineffective depending on the case so not sure he's the right person to talk to.

Also, I stopped reading when he did an ad break on a twitter thread. Who needs ads in twitter threads? It makes him seem desperate and out of touch. Nobody needs his opinion, and they need his opinion with ad breaks even less.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#182

Post by leephillips » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #73

leephillips wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes really: you can get this experience with Twitter: https://lee-phillips.org/howtotwitter/

Edit: I apologize that my original post was dismissive of your effort to help people use twitter.

Don’t worry about it. I didn’t exactly understand your original comment, but I don’t have a problem with people having opinions.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#183

Post by sangnoir » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

dimva wrote: post #100

His argument makes no sense. If this is indeed why they are banning people, why keep the reasoning a secret? Honestly, every ban should come with a public explanation from the network, in order to deter similar behavior. The way things are right now, it's unclear if, when, and for what reason someone will be banned. People get banned all the time with little explanation or explanations that make no sense or are incon…

> Honestly, every ban should come with a public explanation from the network, in order to deter similar behavior

This only works on non-adversarial systems. Anywhere else, it will be like handing over to bad actors (i.e. people whose interests will never align with operator's) a list of blindspots

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#184

Post by wasmitnetzen » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:42 PM UTC

marban wrote: post #54

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #15

As once famously said by Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write a short Twitter thread, so I wrote a long one instead."

Make that "I didn't have time to write a tweet, so I wrote a Twitter thread instead."

I thought about that phrasing, but it was too far from the original quote for me. But yes, it also works and is the better joke as well.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#185

Post by boredhedgehog » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:44 PM UTC

atchoo wrote: post #76

I think you have to be quite credulous to engage in this topic of "twitter moderation" as if it's in good faith. It's not about about creating a good experience for users, constructive debate or even money. It's ALL about political influence. > Iʻm heartened to know that @DavidSacks is involved. I'm not. I doubt he is there because Twitter is like Zenefits, it's because his preoccupation over the last few years has b…

You are showcasing exactly the behavior he blames for the degeneration of dialogue: take any kind of question and turn it into a political us vs them.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#186

Post by nradov » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:49 PM UTC

count wrote: post #110

nradov wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real society is not that polarized. If you talk to real people they mostly have moderate political opinions. But they don't tweet about politics. Twitter is not a real place.

Society is a closed system, twitter is not outside of society. The people on twitter are real people (well, mostly, probably), and have real political opinions. If you talk to people, by and large they'll profess moderate opinions, because in person discussions still trigger politeness and non-confrontational emotions in most people, so the default 'safe' thing to say is the moderate choice, no matter what their true…

Nah. Even those few accounts on Twitter that are actually run by real people (not bots) are mostly trolling to some extent. It's all a big joke.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#187

Post by throw0101a » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:50 PM UTC

raxxorraxor wrote: post #92

throw0101a wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we sure that it is not the other way around? Didn't social platforms created or increased polarization? The process of polarization (in the US) started decades ago: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We%27re_Polarized In fact it seems that people were always polarized, it's just that the political parties (R & D in the US) didn't really bother sorting themselves on topics until the 1960s: even in the 1970s and…

I think political parties only later began astroturfing on social media and split users in camps. Formerly content on reddit in default subreddits often had low quality, but you still got some nice topics here and there. Now it is a propaganda hellhole that is completely in the hands of pretty polarized users. > "Us versus them" seems to be baked into the structure of humans. Not quite, but one of the most effective…

> I think political parties only later began astroturfing on social media and split users in camps.

The splitting into camps (in the US) based on particular topics started much earlier than social media:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

> Not quite, but one of the most effective temptations one can offer is giving people a moral excuse to hate others.

The psychology studies referenced in the book show us-versus-them / in/out-group mentality without getting in moral questions or political topics.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#188

Post by drewbeck » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #158

drewbeck wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a study to be done on the polarization around twitter threads. I have zero problem with them and find overall that lots of great ideas are posted in threads, and the best folks doing it end up with super cogent and well written pieces. I find it baffling how many folks are triggered by them and really hate them!

This is likely because threads are a "high engagement" signal for Twitter and therefore prone to being gamed. There are courses teaching people how to game the Twitter algo. One of those took off significantly in the past 18 months. You can tell by the number of amateurs creating threads on topics far beyond their reach. The purpose of these threads is for it to show up on people's feeds under the "Topic" section. Fo…

> This is likely because threads are a "high engagement" signal for Twitter and therefore prone to being gamed.

You mean this is the reason folks respond differently to the form of twitter thread? This is one that is definitely not from a growth hacker but folks here still seem to hate it.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#189

Post by adharmad » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #151

pjc50 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of genius to put it in the middle. Most normal people write a tweet that blows up and then have to append "Check out my soundcloud!" on the end. Or an advert for the nightsky lamp.

That was the middle? I stopped reading once it got to 'here's my exciting new gig about trees' bit.

There is one at the end too (if you reach that far) shilling for another company where he is an investor - Block Party.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#190

Post by ojosilva » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

There are so many tangible vectors in content! It makes me feel like moderation is a doable, albeit hard to automate, task:

- substantiated / unsubstantiated - extreme / moderate - controversial / anodyne - fact / fun / fiction - legal / unlawful - mainstream / niche - commercial / free - individual / collective - safe / unsafe - science / belief - vicious / humane - blunt / tactful - etc. etc.

Maybe I'm too techno-utopic, but can't we model AI to detect how these vectors combine to configure moderation?

Ex: Ten years ago masks were niche, therefore unsubstantiated news on the drawbacks of wearing masks were still considered safe because very few people were paying attention and/or could harm themselves, so that it was not controversial and did not require moderation. Post-covid, the vector values changed, questionable content about masks could be flagged for moderation with some intensity indexes, user-discretion-advised messages and/or links to rebuttals if applicable.

Let the model and results be transparent and reviewable, and, most important, editorial. I think the greatest mistake of moderated social networks is that many people (and the network themselves) think that these internet businesses are not "editorial", but they are not very different from regular news sources when it comes to editorial lines.