Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation • Hacker News Board

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#221

Post by dontknowwhyihn » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

roblabla wrote: post #104

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…

From my understanding, he's not claiming this is how twitter currently works. He's offering advice about how to solve content moderation on twitter.

He’s offering advice that differs from what Reddit does in practice. They absolutely ban content rather than behavior. Try questioning “the science” and it doesn’t matter how considerate you are, you will be banned.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#222

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

phillipcarter wrote: post #36

jameskilton wrote: post #9

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. But you likely aren't, and most people likely aren't either. That's the entire premise behind removing bad actors and spaces that allow bad actors to grow.

I think the point is that anyone and/or everyone can be a bad actor in the right circumstances, and moderations job is to prevent those circumstances.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#223

Post by ajmurmann » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

jameskilton wrote: post #9

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…

It sounds like a insurmountable problem. What makes this even more interesting to me is that HN seems to have this working pretty well. I wonder how much of it has to do with clear guidelines of what should be valued and what shouldn't and having a community that buys in to that. For example one learns quickly that Reddit-style humor comments are frowned upon because the community enforces it with downvotes and frequently explanations of etiquette.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#224

Post by rglover » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

A fun idea that I'm certain no one has considered with any level of seriousness: don't moderate anything.

Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate and make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc). The "pay to play" idea will eliminate an insane amount of the junk, too. Any free network is inherently going to have problems of chaos. Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.

As for advertisers (why any moderation is necessary in the first place beyond totalitarian thought control): have different tiers of quality. If you want a higher quality audience, pay more. If you're more concerned about broad reach (even if that means getting junk users), pay less. Beyond that, advertisers/brands should set their expectations closer to reality: randomly appearing alongside some tasteless stuff on Twitter does not mean you're vouching for those ideas.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#225

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

esotericimpl wrote: post #129

jameskilton wrote: post #9

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…

Charge them $10 to create an account (anonymous, real, parody whatever), then if they break a rule give them a warning, 2 rule breaks, a 24 hour posting suspension, 3 strikes and permanently ban the account. Let them reregister for $10. Congrats, i just solved spam, bots, assholes and permanent line steppers.

Unless you generate more than $10 from the account. For example in presidential election years in the US billions is spent in advertising the elections. A few PACs would gladly throw cash at astroturf movements on social media even at the risk of being banned.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#226

Post by bink » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #206

10000truths wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine for a moment what would happen if this rationale were extended to the criminal justice system. Due process is sanctified in law for a good reason. Incontestable assumptions of adversarial intent are the slow but sure path to the degradation of any community. There will always be blind spots and malicious actors, no matter how you structure your policies on content moderation. Maintaining a thriving and produc…

Being cagey about the reasons for bans is 1. To keep people from cozying up to the electric fence. If you don't know where the fence is you'll probably not risk a shock trying to find it. There are other ways one can accomplish this like bringing the banhammer down on everyone near the fence every so often very publicly but point 2 kinda makes that suck. 2. To not make every single ban a dog and pony show when it's c…

Sorta related to (1) but not really: there are also more "advanced" detection techniques that most sites use to identify things like ban evasion and harassment using multiple accounts. If they say "we identified that you are the same person using this other account and have reason to believe you've created this new account solely to evade that ban" then people will start to learn what techniques are being used to identify multiple accounts and get better at evading detection.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#227

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

dontknowwhyihn wrote: post #221

roblabla wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, he's not claiming this is how twitter currently works. He's offering advice about how to solve content moderation on twitter.

He’s offering advice that differs from what Reddit does in practice. They absolutely ban content rather than behavior. Try questioning “the science” and it doesn’t matter how considerate you are, you will be banned.

Because no one has developed a moderation framework based on behavior. Content is (somewhat) easy, a simple regex can capture that. Behavior is far more complicated and even more subject to our biases.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#228

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

mikkergp wrote: post #152

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…

Yeah, I saw David Sacks tweet: “ The entitled elite is not mad that they have to pay $8/month. They’re mad that anyone can pay $8/month.” There must be quite a few people in here who are well versed in customer relations, at least in the context of a startup, can anyone explain to me why Musk and Sacks seem to have developed the strategy of insulting their customers and potential customers? I can think of two reasons…

Aside from the weird elite baiting rhetoric, does this mean that blue checkmark no longer means "yes, this is that famous person/thing you've heard of, not an impersonator" but now just means "this person gave us 8 dollars?"

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#229

Post by etchalon » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #223

jameskilton wrote: post #9

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…

It sounds like a insurmountable problem. What makes this even more interesting to me is that HN seems to have this working pretty well. I wonder how much of it has to do with clear guidelines of what should be valued and what shouldn't and having a community that buys in to that. For example one learns quickly that Reddit-style humor comments are frowned upon because the community enforces it with downvotes and frequ…

I suspect HN succeeds due to heavy moderation, explicit community guidelines and a narrow topic set.

Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

#230

Post by etchalon » Thu, Nov 03, 2022, 6:20 PM UTC

esotericimpl wrote: post #129

jameskilton wrote: post #9

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…

Charge them $10 to create an account (anonymous, real, parody whatever), then if they break a rule give them a warning, 2 rule breaks, a 24 hour posting suspension, 3 strikes and permanently ban the account. Let them reregister for $10. Congrats, i just solved spam, bots, assholes and permanent line steppers.

You solved bots, but destroyed the product.