921–930 of 975 posts
Reddit has terrible moderation. So bad that it's a literal joke/meme at this point, down to a personal level in some cases even. Why would anyone ask for moderation advice in that general direction? To get a script on what not to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social networks work because people enjoy using them. As people tell their friends about the network, they use it, and network effects allow it to grow. As it grows, its brand is established. Twitter is a distant fourth or fifth place network because, as it is, most people do not enjoy using it. Its Brand is wildly seen as synonymous with toxic parts of our culture. And your plan is to make it worse and then charge p…
It really depends on how you use it. Just based on your attitude it's clear you're engaging with bad stuff and then blaming that on the greater experience of the app/network as a whole. If you follow a bunch of politics stuff (which is inherently inflammatory) or seek out arguments with people you know you disagree with, yeah, you're not going to have a good time. You can only follow bible quotes and motivation accou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny you mention the 14th Amendment. It is a little over 150 years old. For the first century interracial marriage wasn't on the list of protections provided by the 14th. When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. When enough people say you should be allowed, you will be. Maybe that is cynical, but that is life in a democracy. Churchill was right a…
> It is a little over 150 years old. Not everywhere in the world. I’ve spent 40 years in a country without one. > When enough people consistently say you shouldn't be allowed to do something, we won't allow you to do it. Exactly. You guys can lose your 1st amendment pretty quickly.
The example of the 14th Amendment was meant to show that these amendments don't have some innate meaning or special true power. The 1st Amendment only ever means what the majority wants it to mean (a loose definition of majority, the US is a republic not a democracy, etc.).
We will never lose the 1st Amendment, however we are constantly having a debate over what the 1st Amendment actually means. From a practical perspective, your rights are not innate or god given, they are majority given. That is how these systems work and no one has yet found a system that can improve on that approach.
In the US, where Twitter & Facebook are dominant, the current consensus in the public mind is that political polarization and radicalization are driven by the social media algorithms. However, I have always felt that this explanation was lacking. Here in Brazil we have many of the same problems but the dominant social media are Whatsapp group chats, which have no algorithms whatsoever (other than invisible spam filte…
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…
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's not a mistake. It's a PR strategy. Social media companies are training people to blame content and each other for the effects that are produced by design, algorithms and moderation. This reassigns blame away from things that those companies control (but don't want to change) to things that aren't considered "their fault".
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 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…
Someone asked a dumb question, I replied in good faith. The conversation goes on and on and becomes weirder and weirder, until the person said "You shouldn't have replied me.", and left. Haha wtf, why would they do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember keybase.io? They still exist, but not as a cross-platform identity system anymore.
Yeah, but it never had Elon Musk backing it and or was an established app the likes of Twitter is.
It's kinda funny that many of the problems he's mentioning is exactly how moderation on reddit currently works. Hell, newly revamped "block user" mode got extra gaslighting as a feature, now person blocked can't reply to anyone under the comment of person that blocked them, not just the person that blocked them so anyone that doesn't like people discussing how they are wrong can just ban the people that disagree with…
Gaslight: "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity." Definition from Oxford Languages