The best part of his engrossing Twitter thread is that he inserts a multitweet interstitial "ad" for his passion project promoting reforestation right in the middle of his spiel.
Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
361–370 of 975 posts
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#362I recently started my own Discord server and had my first experience in content moderation. The demographics is mostly teenagers. Some have mental health issues. It was the hardest thing ever. In first incident I chose to ignore a certain user being targeted by others for posting repeated messages. The person left a very angry message and left. Comes the second incident, I thought I learnt my lesson. Once a user is t…
Imo, some people leaving is not necessary bad thing. Like, some people are looking for someone to bully. Either you allow them bully or they leave. The choice determines overall culture of you community.
And sometimes people are looking for a fight and will search it until they find it ... and then leave.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sounds good to me. That would mean that your energy in moderation would directly result in income. If superpacs are willing to pay $3.33 a message, that's a money-spinner.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#364This topic was adjacent to the sugar and L-isomer comments. Which probably influenced my viewpoint:
Yishan is saying that Twitter (and other social networks) moderate bad behavior, not bad content. They just strive for higher SNR. It is just that specific types of content seems to be disproportionately responsible for starting bad behavior in discussions; and thus get banned. Sounds rational and while potentially slightly unfair looks totally reasonable for a private company.
But what I think is happening is that this specific moderation on social networks in general and Twitter in particular has pushed them along the R- (or L-) isomer path to an extent that a lot of content, however well presented and rationally argued, just cannot be digested. Not because it is objectively worse or leads into a nastier state, but simply because deep inside some structure is pointing in the wrong direction.
Which, to me, is very bad. Once you reach this state of mental R- and L- incompatibility, no middle ground is possible and the outcome is decided by an outright war. Which is not fun and brings a lot of causalties. My 2c.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#365> Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR. > (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted) An enticing idea but simply not the case for any popular existing social network. And it's triply not true on yishan's reddit which both through administrative measures and moderation culture targets any and all communities that do not share the favoured new-left…
He is half-correct, but not in a good way. When people on the left say something that goes against new-left agenda, they get suppressed too. That is not a redeeming quality of the system or an indicator of fairness. It simply shows that the ideology driving moderation is even more narrow-minded and intolerant of dissent than most observers assume at first sight.
At the same time, it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation". Just look at who primarily uses major alternative platforms.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just see what gets through and more importantly which valid mails are being marked as spam. It is evident that they haven't got a clue. So, how do they "solve" it? By using the "reputation" of your IP addresses and trust that more than the content of the email.
I've got 6 mails in my gmail spam (in the last month) - 2 of them are not spam which is about normal for what I see (30-40% non-spam.)
Yet most people don't seem to ever look in their spam folder. Conclusion: gmail has a great spam-filter! :(
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#367> Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR. > (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted) An enticing idea but simply not the case for any popular existing social network. And it's triply not true on yishan's reddit which both through administrative measures and moderation culture targets any and all communities that do not share the favoured new-left…
All the communist subreddits are in constant hot water with the admins. They banned ChapoTrapHouse when it was one of the biggest subreddits. When a bunch of moderators tried to protest against reddit hosting antivax content, the admins took control over those subreddits.
So no, you're just factually wrong here.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#368Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#369Just 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.
And Reddit was still a better site back then.
Their anything goes policy is also a huge part of what made them successful back in the day.
Re: Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing bad actors with bad behavior . Bad behavior is something good people do from time to time because they get really worked up about a specific topic or two. Bad actors are people who act bad all the time. There may be some of those but they're not the majority by far (and yes, sometimes normal people turn into bad actors because they get upset about a given thing that they can't talk about anything els…
I think that's right. One benefit this has: if you can make the moderation about behavior (I prefer the word effects [1]) rather than about the person, then you have a chance to persuade them to behave differently. Some people, maybe even most, adjust their behavior in response to feedback. Over time, this can compound into community-level effects (culture etc.) - that's the hope, anyhow. I think I've seen such chang…
The other tricky thing is a bad actor will work to stay just this side of the rules while still causing damage and destruction to the forum itself.