Is content moderation a dead end?
ben-evans.com
Is content moderation a dead end?
1–10 of 309 posts
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#2My response to the title is: "No, but it requires more resources than most are willing to admit or give."
The crux of the issue is that there's no "cost" to be bad. If there was a "cost" then bad actors would go away for quickly. Any "cost" you impose will be diametrically opposed to popularity - but a low volume/unpopular site is unlikely to be abused to begin with.
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#3Agree with the author that moderating every interaction on a social network is a fool's errand. I'd go a step further and say that the future isn't simply restricting some features like links and replies, but rather more closed networks where entry is guarded (think PC software downloads -> app stores) and only a very limited set of specialized actions and interactions is allowed (think app sandboxing).
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#4Obviously not, since we’re discussing it on a site with content moderation right now that, in my opinion, works much better than sites without.
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#5Obviously not, since we’re discussing it on a site with content moderation right now that, in my opinion, works much better than sites without.
HN is hardly as diverse a site to moderate as YouTube and Reddit
Should all forums rules conform to HN?
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#6My response to the title is: "No, but it requires more resources than most are willing to admit or give." The crux of the issue is that there's no "cost" to be bad. If there was a "cost" then bad actors would go away for quickly. Any "cost" you impose will be diametrically opposed to popularity - but a low volume/unpopular site is unlikely to be abused to begin with.
The problem is the costs of content moderation are not linear. You are not dealing with a few thousand trolls. You're dealing with bot farms impersonating possibly over a million accounts. Huge groups of networks operated by just a few dozen people.
Automating that away is the only path to being on equal footing. If you introduce any human element, not only will it be a bottleneck, but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies.
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#7We are lying to ourselves, and we are doing it through colonialization writ large, once again. People who use Twitter and Facebook seem to be completely unaware that thousands of content moderators in the Philippines are being subjected to images of utter depredation and cruelty by the minute because we refuse to take responsibility ourselves. History will not look well on what we did to these these heroic underpaid people. I do not blame Mark Zuckerberg, whom I despise. He is doing this with our full consent.
In my view the only proper way to handle content moderation is that every user of these “free“ social media platforms over the age of 18 should should be required to moderate some proportion every month to understand what’s actually going on.
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#8My response to the title is: "No, but it requires more resources than most are willing to admit or give." The crux of the issue is that there's no "cost" to be bad. If there was a "cost" then bad actors would go away for quickly. Any "cost" you impose will be diametrically opposed to popularity - but a low volume/unpopular site is unlikely to be abused to begin with.
The problem is the costs of content moderation are not linear. You are not dealing with a few thousand trolls. You're dealing with bot farms impersonating possibly over a million accounts. Huge groups of networks operated by just a few dozen people. Automating that away is the only path to being on equal footing. If you introduce any human element, not only will it be a bottleneck, but the cost could be large enough…
> but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies.
In my opinion, if you can't hire enough people to moderate without going bankrupt, then bankrupt you go! Would this mean we can't have social media? Maybe. Probably for the best.
But you can't moderate then you go out of business. That's the way it should be. Probably then people would find a way to moderate and stay afloat.
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#9Obviously not, since we’re discussing it on a site with content moderation right now that, in my opinion, works much better than sites without.
HN is hardly as diverse a site to moderate as YouTube and Reddit Should all forums rules conform to HN?
Downvoted for sophistry and complete lack of addition to the discourse. Or do you happen to do a better job moderating a site elsewhere?
Re: Is content moderation a dead end?
#10Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat.
You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bubbles better behaved members to the top. If the bad behaviour continues, by single members or sub-groups, the higher echelon of members will cut that branch loose, or loose their own social standing.
Reapplying members, would have to apply at the lowest ranks (distributing the work) and those would risk dharma loss if they vouched for sb unworthy in the trial out phase.
We never solved the bad tree problem though. What if there exists a whole tree of bad apples vouching for another? You can not rely on the other feudal "houses" indicating this correctly, due to ingame rivalry.