Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#121

Post by pixl97 » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:07 PM UTC

feet wrote: post #79

sokoloff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems normal to me. I click and comment on the articles on topics that interest me. Aviation articles will have aviation buffs over-represented. Math articles math buffs. EV articles will have EV buffs and people with an opinion about Teslas over-represented. For psychedelics, the effect might be more pronounced because there aren’t that many people casually interested and/or those who are are reading and not wr…

Right, but it's all personal anecdote. Not commentary on studies or research. If the guidelines for the subreddit are to keep things more focused on research it would make sense to me for mods to remove the massive amount of anecdote that comes out of the woodwork. Sure people can be interested in using psychedelics themselves, but they want the discussion to focus on research

This is what most people seem to miss in this HN thread. Go look at the average 'large' subreddit, and I'm talking about the ones where personal anecdotes are expected. You'll tend to have some top level posts that are decent, and generally longer post. You'll have hundreds of posts that are memes, crap like "5 out of 7, perfect", subarguments that go off topic, and plenty of bots posting comments from other threads. The format the /r/science requires is the antithesis of 99% of the rest of reddit.

This leads to moderation fatigue. You have lots of stuff that should be summarily executed and takes up tons of your time. Then you have the minority of posts that require some thought on if it's just a controversial post, or that guy that just keeps making accounts and being an intentional malicious troll. But, you don't have any time to think on these post because another 3 crap posts ended up in the moderation queue in the 3 seconds you're looking at the first one. Eventually people get to the point that if a post ends up in the moderation queue it just gets blocked, which then trolls use to flag just about everything. It's a messy situation when you're asking volunteers to do this.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#122

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

pluc wrote: post #110

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so sorry that this tool is making you more accountable for your actions. It's truly a shame that people in positions of authority over others are held to a higher standard of scrutiny. We should just be blindly trusting them.

Your alternative that time is spent explaining in detail every action taken isn't realistic, doesn't scale and doesn't start to consider the fact that it's volunteer work. Especially when the reasons for 100% of the actions that are taken should be documented and publicly available (and we're not talking about mod abuse here, but actual moderation). But sure, it's a great idea; go ahead and enforce it at scale now. R…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#123

Post by aliqot » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

pluc wrote: post #69

loceng wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the #2 problem is that you're not getting paid. And the #1 problem is actually much worse since "you" aren't paid - in that there is a strong likelihood that "you": 1) are a paid shill to suppress specific content by either domestic or foreign bad actors (government or industrial complex trying to control/suppress narratives), and/or 2) "you" have an ideological bent - and are "passionate" (and biased) on certain…

Totally agree. There are great mods then there are people with an agenda. The reputation mods get on reddit is always one of selfish, controlling power-tripping assholes, but for the large majority that's way off. But there's also cases where it's completely justified.

They do it for free...

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#124

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

otikik wrote: post #103

tsol wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Problem is this: science is not democratic. The problem with this; who gets to decide what's right? The institution of science has had this issue before, and decided no one group is capable of always doing that. Hence it is decided using consensus and the scientific method. It's easy to say 'only allow professionals' but there ARE professionals with controversial opinions that will still get mobbed.

As I mentioned it is far from perfect. Scientists are still human. It is still the best system we have, and it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. If you want that, try MTV.

> it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”.

Letting users discover when their content is removed is not "letting everyone in".

You can have both moderation and transparency. They're not mutually exclusive, and many people will alter their behavior in a group after being told their content was removed. They're less likely to change when they're not told. For those who persist, consider what Jonathan Rauch says about speaking in a public forum,

> The person you're talking to isn't the person you're directly talking to. You're not going to be able to persuade that hardcore LGBT left-wing activist that your point of view is correct. The person you're talking to is [the one overhearing your conversation]... They're seeing you sound reasonable, and the other person sound dogmatic and censorious... [1]

In other words, don't compromise your values to deal with a minority of very persistent people with whom most people don't find alignment anyway. When you do compromise your values, that person will shift to attack you on the basis of censorship, and you've just given them the very platform they needed to gain followers. At that point you're no longer the open discussion forum to whatever degree you claimed.

So you can't convince everyone of your viewpoint. So what? Leave it at that. Accepting that someone may not agree with you right away, or possibly ever, is the grown up thing to do. After all, in some cases it may be your mind that gets changed. To the extent you don't do this, you are your own worst enemy. And when you can see it through, you will have become your best advocate.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#125

Post by pixl97 » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

rhaksw wrote: post #59

samhuk wrote: post #57

I can see how shadowbanning ("bot-bans") is effective against bot accounts, since it's less trivial for a bot maker to write code that detects when their bot has been detected, resulting in a lower rate of new bot accounts. That makes sense. However what seems to have occurred is a widespread blatant misuse of bot-bans to silence different views from the group of moderators. shadowbanning is obviously a security-thro…

> I can see how shadowbanning ("bot-bans")is effective against bot accounts, since it's less trivial for a bot maker to write code that detects when their bot has been detected, resulting in a lower rate of new bot accounts. Huh? It's trivial to write code that detects shadow bans, and bot-makers are more likely to write such code than individuals who get shadow banned. I mention this at 28:00 in the linked video on…

>The fuss over bots makes no sense to me.

Have you been paying attention to some of the content ending up on reddit then? I've been seeing accounts in posts with no original content. They appear to index other users threads then apply some ML and post them to other similar subjects where it seems to fit. It was only when I saw one of these bots post the same content in a thread with two different user accounts that I realised this was a thing.

"But it comes from humans"

Cancer is a human cell, just coming from humans doesn't mean it can have a negative outcome if allowed to spread. Reddit is a business with costs. The business model assumes that at least some percentage of content pulled will drive ad revenue that allows the business to run servers. You can keep increasing the portion of bots to humans to the point that the business model is not sustainable. Letting "Dead Internet Theory" run wild is a great way to go out of business quickly.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#126

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

mariusor wrote: post #114

dmix wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just happen to be lucky enough to be within the very narrow overton window. Or at least a) believe what's being curated for you and b) never cared to look at what's not being said. You should hope that your views (or more accurately, their views) never stray from it and the information that a tiny group of people are controlling is good for the entire population. You could say just use another subreddit. But this…

I find it a little sad that in order to disagree with me you have to be mean about it. There are plenty of reasons why a subreddit like r/science is fine for people, not just the fact that they have a "very narrow Overton window". Maybe it's because we understand that this particular subreddit does not conform to the usual agora of discussion that reddit is known for and just shows a list of maybe interesting science…

> I find it a little sad that in order to disagree with me you have to be mean about it.

I didn't find what was written to be mean. Eleanor Roosevelt said,

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

If you feel sad, that's fine, I just want to point out that this is a choice we all make. Sometimes there is wide agreement on what constitutes offense, and we use this to justify the secret removal of other people's content. But offense is inherently subjective, and such secretive removals rob us of chances to sharpen our counter speech. Rather than trying to make perceived hateful conversations secretly disappear, I think we are better off allowing each other to prepare counter arguments to offensive speech.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#127

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

adbachman wrote: post #113

rhaksw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's narrower than you might think. For example, I've recently been paying attention to the trans issue because some are saying that pro-trans groups are equating words with violence [1] [2]. Apparently the pro-trans groups have been saying that only 1% detransition, but there are youth speaking out saying that number is likely far greater [3] [4] [5]. It's hard for me to believe these are made up stories. And, it ap…

It took a long time for you to get around to it, but was the reason your comments keep getting moderated because you show up in every gender / transgender thread dropping links and "just asking questions"? More important than the content of speech in social media moderation is the behavior. You demonstrate bad behavior here.

> It took a long time for you to get around to it, but was the reason your comments keep getting moderated because you show up in every gender / transgender thread dropping links and "just asking questions"?

No, this is only the second time I've discussed the gender/trans issue. My comments generally get moderated for containing links to Reveddit.

> More important than the content of speech in social media moderation is the behavior. You demonstrate bad behavior here.

What is the bad behavior to which you are referring?

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#128

Post by pixl97 » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

rhaksw wrote: post #96

pluc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We experienced that too, at a much higher rate. Mods would get blamed for deletions AutoMod would do. Turned into quite a shitshow.

> We experienced that too, at a much higher rate. Mods would get blamed for deletions AutoMod would do. Turned into quite a shitshow. Sorry, how are mods not responsible for the bot they coded? Or, are you saying users were attributing the removals to humans rather than understanding that it was done by a script? If the latter, then I'm not sure the distinction is so important for users. What they care about is under…

>In the real world, we do not throw criminals in jail

Again, you seem to be very confused about private property.

Think of it as a civil action, which at least in US law, that is operated under a completely different set of books and assumptions. For example I can tell you to leave my properly in a civil action without any explanation why. If you come back a criminal charge can be presented against you.

Much like a business can remove its patrons at will for (nearly, civil rights apply) any reason they can be negatively impacted if and when they do this to too many people and the patronage stops coming, you still don't have any legal right to their property.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#129

Post by rhaksw » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

hhmc wrote: post #92

rhaksw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's narrower than you might think. For example, I've recently been paying attention to the trans issue because some are saying that pro-trans groups are equating words with violence [1] [2]. Apparently the pro-trans groups have been saying that only 1% detransition, but there are youth speaking out saying that number is likely far greater [3] [4] [5]. It's hard for me to believe these are made up stories. And, it ap…

That's a _VERY_ selective set of sources ([3][4][5]), which you are in bad faith using a representation of the "youth"

"There are youth speaking out" should not be taken to mean "all youth". It means "some youth".

It's another point of view on an issue that I'd only previously seen presented from one perspective. That's why I found it to be so interesting. I was shocked to hear it because I had no prior understanding that anything untoward was going on. Question for you, what do you think about Keira Bell's story?

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#130

Post by pclmulqdq » Sat, Nov 05, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

mariusor wrote: post #116

pclmulqdq wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the average community member is a moron doesn't mean that you should delete the posts from the people who are not. I'm sure they get tons of "biology doesn't replicate" posts that should get removed. They also remove posts that are polite, technically correct, and specific, and point out glaring issues in the paper.

I think that posses the credentials to show that are not "morons" can get verified in the subreddit and will not have their comments removed.

That is true, but this happens even to credentialed users who speak on papers outside of their supposed field of expertise, even when their comment is within their area of expertise. If a mathematician points out a math error in a biology or climate science paper, it gets deleted. The mathematician rightly should know more about math than a biologist or a climate scientist, and the comment is still taken down.

Also, you shouldn't need credentials to demonstrate that you know something - the fact that you post something polite and useful should be enough to have your comment not be removed. It is a useful proxy for moderation at scale, though.