[dead]
Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
161–170 of 244 posts
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#162I followed all it's prescriptions (which of course conflict with each other) and it only made the comment worse in that it went from disrespectful to spam. I managed to get useless/meaningless comments like:
I understand why some people enjoy the movie, but it doesn't resonate with me because the themes don't feel engaging or relevant.
Past it with 4/5
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#163Something I've been thinking about for years, and fully expected to see earlier. Even though reasoning with LLMs is still largely broken, the "flag logical fallacies and cognitive biases" task feels like something trivially doable and much more appropriate than most of the stuff we're throwing at them.
If we'd regulate platforms away from walled gardens and towards open APIs, a tool like this could fix a lot of the problems with the internet without balkanizing it. The real use-case isn't slapping this thing on your blog, but using it with existing social media that will never, ever opt-in to anything that slightly empowers users. Browsing HN, reddit, or youtube comments armed with a simple checkbox that hides comments that are not information-dense? Yes please.
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#164I think the premise of this tool is flawed. Bad faith actors are not people who write poorly or aggressively because they don't know how to express their beliefs like a polite, college educated white collar professional. They are people who have an agenda to push and are willing to use whatever rhetorical techniques allowed to achieve their goals. I would even go as far as saying that we are under more threat from ba…
> I think the premise of this tool is flawed. Bad faith actors are not people who... I think there's something here. The tool is not intended to stop bad faith actors. You can't stop those. But you can nudge people into "being better" with a simple prompt. I can't recall the exact blog/paper now, but I remember reading that someone did this test (google perhaps?) and saw that with a simple prompt "hey this message is…
Nudging people to be better might make each individual better but site experience isn't made by an individual. It's just reinventing religion
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moderating politics is not just hard, I would say its near impossible. I tend to hide anything that hints of politics from all my feeds, block users who are disrespectful, and reserve political banter for when I am walking with my friends, where we are all totally different on the spectrum, but remain civil.
I'm honestly not even sure if civil political discourse is desirable in times of radical actions being taken by the government. I almost think that's worse than no political discourse. e: To clarify my point, e.g. you can't calmly disagree with whether or not it's okay to shoot people in streets, that diminishes it as if it was just a slight disagreement
Not in completely open communities, no.
It would be better to gatekeep political communities with precisely worded "principle" questions and then flag for violations of those for anybody who slipped in under the radar.
Even political communities where everyone is nominally on the same page do break down over issues of tone, disingenuous arguments, etc. though.
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#166I think the premise of this tool is flawed. Bad faith actors are not people who write poorly or aggressively because they don't know how to express their beliefs like a polite, college educated white collar professional. They are people who have an agenda to push and are willing to use whatever rhetorical techniques allowed to achieve their goals. I would even go as far as saying that we are under more threat from ba…
I'll wager that 95% of incitive and unhelpful comments aren't written by "bad faith actors" as you define them, but ordinary people carried away by emotions or mob sentiment.
Just a reminder that "this probably isn't worth replying to" should help a lot. But alas, it would directly reduce precious engangement.
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#167[flagged]
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#168[flagged]
Your tone is sarcastic, which makes it hard to follow what you intend.
>They get banned!
Isn't the point that 'they' get lessons in proper debate.
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#169It seems to have a harder time with political news than more abstract concepts. I was able to pass the checks for the Algorithmic Radicalization and Echo Chamber articles with my first comments. However, I did not manage to express any opinion on the transgender rights article, from any political perspective, without being flagged. On one of the comments I tested, it gave me a suggested revision from this: "This is a…
These types of tools always show the authors bias. It’s a good strategy to quickly move on when found.
What bias did you have in mind?
Re: Show HN: Respectify – A comment moderator that teaches people to argue better
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks so much for the feedback. Exactly the kind of perspective that we need. I agree, it shouldn't be like that. I guess it isn't a surprise that politics will be the hardest topic to moderate. We'll keep trying to get better. Your comment helps us know where to focus. Thanks.
Moderating politics is not just hard, I would say its near impossible. I tend to hide anything that hints of politics from all my feeds, block users who are disrespectful, and reserve political banter for when I am walking with my friends, where we are all totally different on the spectrum, but remain civil.
Cut off those using ad hominems. Fact check. All opinion should be labelled. Only one identity per person. Any associations or biases are public.
Do all that then I can't see what's hard about it ;oP.
Genuinely though, I think those things are doable. You probably have to have people use their own irl identities (at least the platform needs that information), which is problematic if you want free and open debate.