Decentralised content moderation • Hacker News Board

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#131

Post by mikeveilleux » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 3:46 AM UTC

Having been part of the email ecosystem where well established spam filtering and reputation management systems have been in place for years, I've found it interesting how close these more recent conversations are to those we've had around email messaging abuse.

> Thus, as soon as a censorship-resistant social network becomes sufficiently popular, I expect that it will be filled with messages from spammers, neo-nazis, and child pornographers (or any other type of content that you consider despicable).

Unfortunately, I agree this is likely the case, and also agree with many of the other points where there's unlikely to be an agreed upon approach at scale.

I feel the two most important aspects of any moderation are transparency and consistency. I'd always like to know what community I'm joining.

We'll likely see more niche communities continue to pop up on centralized and decentralized networks where the moderation, content and community can be more tailored to their own expectations.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#132

Post by swirepe » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 6:52 AM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #128

swirepe wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that groups like the Amish don't reject technology outright, but adopt it selectively based on its effects on their society I can see how this would work for new things invented outside the Amish community. How does this work for new Amish inventions? How do they judge an effect a thing will have on society while they are still building that thing? Edited to add a concrete example: here [1] is a…

> I can see how this would work for new things invented outside the Amish community. How does this work for new Amish inventions? How do they judge an effect a thing will have on society while they are still building that thing? I'm no expert, but I believe they have walked back decisions to allow certain technologies, or allow things for trial periods before making a final decision. Also, it's not like the non-Amish…

You make a great point; I hadn't thought about lead paint or asbestos. Rollbacks are hard, but they are possible.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#133

Post by pitay » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 7:02 AM UTC

davidivadavid wrote: post #126

mountainb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Bubbles' are a pejorative way of just saying 'local communities.' Perhaps as a nation we do not benefit from having an international and transparent global community that is always on and always blaring propaganda and manipulation at people.

Yup, people have been brainwashed into thinking "bubbles" are a problem when they've been the solution to that problem from the start. I've suggested that idea a million time, it's all yours for the taking for those who want to implement it: Build a social network where there is a per-user karma/reputation graph, with a recursive mechanism to propagate reputation (with decay): I like a post, that boosts the signal/re…

If it includes a recommendation system, then something to mix them up a bit so that people can see things that are different to what they have holed themselves into one view/subject by their own karma curation. The idea is that each recommendation has a chance to be anything, more likely something suggested by karma, but has the tiny chance to be the thing that karma suggests I least like. I like the idea of seeing a subject that I didn't know I was interested in or posts I would find objectionable some of the time.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#134

Post by watwut » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 11:03 AM UTC

gremlinsinc wrote: post #127

watwut wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parler moderated by showing post to 5 random people and taking their result.

That's a great idea, if those people were vetted for being objective. If I posted the communist manifesto, would that be blocked, would I be kicked out? What about censorship on something like that?

Kicked out, it was heavily right wing community. That was partly point of it.

But even outside of Parler, no human is ever perfectly objective.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#135

Post by davidivadavid » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

pitay wrote: post #133

davidivadavid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, people have been brainwashed into thinking "bubbles" are a problem when they've been the solution to that problem from the start. I've suggested that idea a million time, it's all yours for the taking for those who want to implement it: Build a social network where there is a per-user karma/reputation graph, with a recursive mechanism to propagate reputation (with decay): I like a post, that boosts the signal/re…

If it includes a recommendation system, then something to mix them up a bit so that people can see things that are different to what they have holed themselves into one view/subject by their own karma curation. The idea is that each recommendation has a chance to be anything, more likely something suggested by karma, but has the tiny chance to be the thing that karma suggests I least like. I like the idea of seeing a…

Yeah, you could introduce a random element of serendipity where you sometimes push a bit further out of the graph to discover things out of your usual purview.