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

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

cantsayanything.win

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 188 posts

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

#101

Post by mrshadowgoose »

pluc wrote: post #60

I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user…

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.

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

#102

Post by samhuk »

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…

Like security through obscurity, it will thwart probably a small percentage of the total new bot accounts. The issue is that you are right, eventually people catch on to the obscurity.

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

#103

Post by otikik »

tsol wrote: post #71
otikik wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take: science has been politicized. As a result people feel like they are entitled to share their (often naive and inexperienced) opinion. Problem is this: science is not democratic. Consensus plays a role, but not everyone getting to the point were you are equipped to peer review others often takes years of effort and study. That’s unavoidable, given that the easy questions have already been answered. A single ……

>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.

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

#104

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

rhaksw wrote: post #80
matthewmacleod wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might. What would happen then? I'd argue there'd be a lot of good discussion. Why bother though? There are thousands of places you can have that discussion, including on Reddit. You can set up, say, /r/scienceforall right now and establish the rules you want. The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You mig…

> Why bother though? See 18:20 [1] and 19:52 [2] in the talk linked on this post. Nobody will visit r/scienceforall because r/science will remove references to it. Plus, forcing me to set up a group doesn't sound like a solution, it sounds like a shake down. To get an open discussion space I have to moderate it, and then have the social media site threaten removal of my mod powers if I fail to remove something they d…

If nobody will visit your subreddit, then that might be an indication of how it's actually being perceived, and not evidence of some great injustice surrounding "free speech".

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

#105

Post by otikik »

rhaksw wrote: post #61
otikik wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take: science has been politicized. As a result people feel like they are entitled to share their (often naive and inexperienced) opinion. Problem is this: science is not democratic. Consensus plays a role, but not everyone getting to the point were you are equipped to peer review others often takes years of effort and study. That’s unavoidable, given that the easy questions have already been answered. A single ……

> science is not democratic I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. The scientific method is all about making mistakes and trying again. Discourse is all about sharing knowledge. Open societies do this effectively. Jonathan Rauch, in Kindly Inquisitors (1993) wrote, > Authoritarian systems have their intellectual giants. What they lack is the capacity to organize and exploit their masses of middling thinkers…

Not at all. For the same reason that heart surgery isn’t. Or black belt karate isn’t. Some human activities just have high skill floors. Science (at the levels we are talking about here - groundbreaking hard to understand complex stuff) is one of them.

Just to clarify: I think science MUST be open for anyone and I think divulging it is critical.

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

#106

Post by rhaksw »

ravenstine wrote: post #85
rhaksw wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> science is not democratic I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. The scientific method is all about making mistakes and trying again. Discourse is all about sharing knowledge. Open societies do this effectively. Jonathan Rauch, in Kindly Inquisitors (1993) wrote, > Authoritarian systems have their intellectual giants. What they lack is the capacity to organize and exploit their masses of middling thinkers…

> I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. No, it really is not. You might as well state that truth is decided by committee and that individuals cannot or should not decide what is true for themselves. Democracy is a tool, not an inherent virtue. If science was inherently democratic, The Science would be "settled"; such is a state of things that has been demonstrated time and again to discredit consent. Just…

> No, it really is not.

Forgive me, I live in Taiwan and in this region "democracy" can sometimes be colloquially equated with "free speech", perhaps because the two concepts seem distant to some stricter regimes.

You're right though, and now I can't edit the comment. If I could, I would rewrite it to say,

> Science may not be "democratic", however it does depend on the ability to conduct civil discourse, which depends on free speech and is central to the US implementation of democracy.

I agree with what you wrote. I think the rest of my comment illustrates that, but saying "science is inherently democratic" is clearly wrong outside of the colloquial definition I've given here which probably nobody else on this board uses. facepalm

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

#107

Post by rhaksw »

otikik wrote: post #47
dmix wrote: post #3

I love reveddit.com, it's hilarious to look at the typical r/science post and see 60%+ of comments removed on average (the 'controversial' ones go 75%+). If the moderators agree with the study there is zero dissent tolerated. This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window. Not just people being off-topic or taboo... b…

My take: science has been politicized. As a result people feel like they are entitled to share their (often naive and inexperienced) opinion. Problem is this: science is not democratic. Consensus plays a role, but not everyone getting to the point were you are equipped to peer review others often takes years of effort and study. That’s unavoidable, given that the easy questions have already been answered. A single ……

Moderation is fine, but what about secret moderation? The issue here is that users are being shown their removed comments as if they are publicly visible. I share my thoughts on the impact at 19:54 [1] in the video linked in this post.

> So at that time you have a choice: either you moderate, in order to keep the channel on-topic, or you accept everything, at which point the guys who benefit from science not being available to the general public have won.

There is another way to view this. I think there is a message in all of that hate speech you see. I'll paraphrase how I perceive it: "I don't see why this is wrong, and I'm frustrated that nobody will debate me about this issue from where I stand, so I'll get angrier and angrier until I get someone's attention."

We could debate over whether this is reasonable, but personally I find it harder and harder to see the merits in the secretive removal of any content. We do need mods to curate according to group rules and the law. I also think the removals should be reviewable at least by the author of the content.

[1] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=1194

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

#108

Post by mariusor »

laputan_machine wrote: post #55
mariusor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call it petty dictatorship, I call it the best moderated subreddit of the whole platform.

Wait until your view becomes the one attacked. Regardless of scientific merit.

I think you and the other posters decrying my "oh so narrow" point of view forget that the subreddit is nothing more than a place to see interesting news about science and the clarifications that people in science can bring on those news.

What it is not is a place where laymen like me and (probably you) can debate the veracity of said science. I don't give a toss about which science articles are posted there and if they agree with my world view as long as the curation and moderation is consistent with the principles described in the subreddit's rules. In my opinion is fine to not have an opinion or comment even if someone on the internet is wrong - present time excluded. :P

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

#109

Post by bakugo »

pontsun wrote: post #49
GameOfFrowns wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the day you fail the purity test and have your IP and all accounts permabanned due to a disagreement with a mod in disguise.

Luckily, moderators can't IP ban anyone. :)

Yes, they can. If you piss off a moderator they'll just ask an admin to ban you, assuming it's not an admin's alt in the first place (admins have sockpuppet mod accounts on every major sub)

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

#110

Post by pluc »

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #101
pluc wrote: post #60

I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user…

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. Reddit couldn't, Twitter can't, Facebook sucks at it.
Post reply on HN