151–160 of 347 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're still associated with that site, and that musician.
Only in the sense that someone who makes a Wix site that says "Neil Young Sux" is associated with Neil Young.
After reading this article over and over I am still clueless. What is this all about? Feature-wise it doesn't sound better than a comment system from HN, Reddit or StackExchange. Besides, Mozilla is really lacking communicational skills. This blog post feels like the documentation at MDN, tedious and unclear.
It's about preventing wrongthink from being expressed on newspaper comment sections. Previously they just removed commenting from politically contentious stories, so I'm not sure why they're bothering with bringing it back.
It's part of a larger narrative being sold to the 21st century investor, that AI are taking everyone's jobs, so buy your robots before someone enslaves you with theirs. (It's all still leading to the Butlerian Jihad of Dune.)
After reading this article over and over I am still clueless. What is this all about? Feature-wise it doesn't sound better than a comment system from HN, Reddit or StackExchange. Besides, Mozilla is really lacking communicational skills. This blog post feels like the documentation at MDN, tedious and unclear.
Well, It's pretty much a commenting platform like Disqus, but with user privacy in mind, which seems a little strange to me, since it was conceived with (stopping) trolls and harrassment in mind. Point is, isn't identifying such individuals a way to explore their online data? I might be jumping to conclusions, but it is one of those topics that stink more whenever you mess with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments In my mind it would be the users, not the site owners that would enable the comments. > People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does? My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to. Perhaps some mechanism…
Isn't this now Mastodon? If it's not actually connected to the site in question? "My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to." That sounds like a pretty complex thing to do, which doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." "In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary c…
I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Comments and moderation are independent of the site, not on the site.
If distributed commenting and moderation is too complex to implement, then we need to move to network designs that make it simpler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the newsroom's site.
Then this is evidence that comments should not be on the site. It's not the place of the newsroom to control discussion.
After reading this article over and over I am still clueless. What is this all about? Feature-wise it doesn't sound better than a comment system from HN, Reddit or StackExchange. Besides, Mozilla is really lacking communicational skills. This blog post feels like the documentation at MDN, tedious and unclear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only in the sense that someone who makes a Wix site that says "Neil Young Sux" is associated with Neil Young.
I disagree. I don't think this is like that at all. Especially given now that comments are displayed on the actual site in question. If you're going to say it's something separate, then now you're talking about Twitter or, more likely, Mastodon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are a few disadvantages Reddit has here. The first that comes to mind is that website administrators, especially for large and politically-charged sites, might like Reddit's software, but not its ... um, culture. "Just embed Reddit" sounds approximately like "just embed 4chan". While smaller sites are happy to give up some control for the sake of easily adding a major feature to their site, larger busin…
But that feels like a marketing fail. You don't have to accepts reddit's culture to embed it's comments. You can have a subreddit that you control where you can moderate it and remove any content you don't like. As a site owner, you can have full control over the content if you want.
Are the moderation tools up to it? I've always thought they had the reputation of being underpowered. Or is that just another marketing fail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this now Mastodon? If it's not actually connected to the site in question? "My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to." That sounds like a pretty complex thing to do, which doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." "In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary c…
doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Comments and moderation are independent of the site, not on the site. If distributed commenting and moderation is too complex to implement, then we need to move to network designs that make it simpler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then this is evidence that comments should not be on the site. It's not the place of the newsroom to control discussion.
Then don't comment on their site? I mean if you're looking for discussion online, there are thousands of places to go. But this is specifically about the comment sections they provide. It seems entirely reasonable that a room they provide should be subject to their rules, and one violating those rules should be shown the door.