Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

respectify.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 244 posts

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#31

Post by coleworld45 »

badc0ffee wrote: post #7

This thing seems to be more about enforcing a political PoV than about avoiding logical fallacies. All my attempts to comment on the UBI article (and not supporting UBI) said my comment was a dogwhistle, and/or had an overly negative tone. This topic, of all things, is absolutely worthy to challenge and debate. Using this would have the effect of creating an echo chamber, where people who stay never benefit from havi…

I wrote "Obama sucks" and got Dogwhistle, Low Score, Low Effort, Objectionable Phrases, and Negative Tone.

I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone.

Definitely a double standard baked in

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#32

Post by Levitating »

someotherperson wrote: post #29

This passes your checks, but a human moderator would flag it: > My favorite movie is die hard. I think it's a Christmas movie. But, honestly, we shouldn't have to wait until Christmas to watch you die hard. We should be able to watch that any day of the week :) Seems to catch various other cases though. Cool tool.

Points for creativity at least

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#33

Post by throwaway13337 »

I was hoping 'respectify' could mean respect for the users.

This is a very important problem space. Maybe the most important today - we desprately need a digital third place that isn't awful. But I think these attempts are misled.

The core issue seems to be that we want our communities to be infinite. Why? Well, because there is currently no way to solve the community discoverability problem without being the massive thing. But that is the issue to solve.

We need a lot of Dunbar's number sized communities. Those communities allow for 'skin in the game' where reputation matters. And maybe a fractal sort of way for those communities to share between them.

The problem is in the discoverability and in a gate keeping that is porous enough to give people a chance.

Solve that, and you solve the the third place problem we have currently. I don't have a solution but I wish I did.

Infinite communities are fundamentally what causes the tribalism (ironically), the loneliness, and the promotion of rage.

No one wants to be forced to argue correctly. Forcing people into a way to think via software is fundamentally authoritarian and sad.

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#34

Post by NickHodges0702 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #26
darqis wrote: post #19

Definitely needed, especially in the Fediverse. Holy crap the edgelords there or on Facebook. You comment something neutral, skeptical, response is either straight insults or completely disagreement and then insults, ad hominem or strawman/gaslighting. Yesterday I dared to write I like X now, it's clean of all the edgelords who went to Bluesky or the Fediverse. Cancel culture on Twitter was over the top. Reaponse, Ca…

"The comment mentions 'Cancel Culture' and uses terms like 'edgelords' and 'Nazi' in a context that dismisses and trivializes serious issues. This reflects a trend in discussions that equates legitimate critiques of harmful behaviors with extreme labels, undermining constructive dialogue and signaling acceptance of toxic rhetoric." "Using phrases like 'Holy crap the edgelords' can come off as dismissive and disrespec…

Thanks so much. This is like gold to us.

The defaults we have set are clearly too high. That comment should be exactly what we should approve. Thanks for trying it.

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#35

Post by ceejayoz »

NickHodges0702 wrote: post #34
ceejayoz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The comment mentions 'Cancel Culture' and uses terms like 'edgelords' and 'Nazi' in a context that dismisses and trivializes serious issues. This reflects a trend in discussions that equates legitimate critiques of harmful behaviors with extreme labels, undermining constructive dialogue and signaling acceptance of toxic rhetoric." "Using phrases like 'Holy crap the edgelords' can come off as dismissive and disrespec…

Thanks so much. This is like gold to us. The defaults we have set are clearly too high. That comment should be exactly what we should approve. Thanks for trying it.

So this is a good illustration of the problem.

If it were my site, "I like X now" would be a red flag.

I don't think you're gonna AI your way out of this part of things for some time, and it really is the core challenge to content moderation; it's heavily opinion and circumstance based, in a way current models really struggle with.

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#36

Post by NickHodges0702 »

reconnecting wrote: post #27
NickHodges0702 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! This is very important, and I'm thankful (and a little surprised!) that you read it! ;-)

Perhaps this is my professional deformation, but when I visit a website, I start with the Privacy page.

I get that -- good idea, actually. Would that we all did that.

For the record, we store zero comments from anyone. If you are using Respectify, we'll know the URL of your site and that is it.

All comments are processed and completely forgotten.

I'll get the TOS and the Privacy Policy improved/updated.

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#37

Post by ceejayoz »

coleworld45 wrote: post #31
badc0ffee wrote: post #7

This thing seems to be more about enforcing a political PoV than about avoiding logical fallacies. All my attempts to comment on the UBI article (and not supporting UBI) said my comment was a dogwhistle, and/or had an overly negative tone. This topic, of all things, is absolutely worthy to challenge and debate. Using this would have the effect of creating an echo chamber, where people who stay never benefit from havi…

I wrote "Obama sucks" and got Dogwhistle, Low Score, Low Effort, Objectionable Phrases, and Negative Tone. I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone. Definitely a double standard baked in

Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more?

(This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#38

Post by john_strinlai »

NickHodges0702 wrote: post #25
badc0ffee wrote: post #7

This thing seems to be more about enforcing a political PoV than about avoiding logical fallacies. All my attempts to comment on the UBI article (and not supporting UBI) said my comment was a dogwhistle, and/or had an overly negative tone. This topic, of all things, is absolutely worthy to challenge and debate. Using this would have the effect of creating an echo chamber, where people who stay never benefit from havi…

If that is happening, that is a huge problem. We'll look at that right away. We specifically don't want that to be the case. We want to encourage healthy, productive debate. We may have the "dog-whistle" stuff over tuned.

the dog whistle tuning is absolutely over the top in its default setting.

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#39

Post by coleworld45 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #37
coleworld45 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote "Obama sucks" and got Dogwhistle, Low Score, Low Effort, Objectionable Phrases, and Negative Tone. I wrote "Trump sucks" and got Low Score, Low Effort, Negative Tone. Definitely a double standard baked in

Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more? (This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)

Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism.

"Dogwhistle

The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This reinforces harmful stereotypes and can contribute to a broader culture of disrespect and division."

Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better

#40

Post by ceejayoz »

coleworld45 wrote: post #39
ceejayoz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more? (This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)

Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part, it's a double standard because it assumes that saying Obama sucks must be a dogwhistle and tied to undertones of racism. "Dogwhistle The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This re…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN