151–160 of 429 posts
NSFW is a euphemism. Please don't push your American puritanical worldview on every user of your UGC platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, there's an entire category of "idea guys" who don't get this. They repeatedly try to crack the code on a truly moderation-free or purely crowd-moderated platform, and it never, ever, ever works. It almost always boils down to a poor understanding of how humans work (usually some sort of "homo economicus") or how computers work (usually some sort of "AI magic wand").
I still theorize crowd-moderated platforms are possible, as long as there's really good gate-keeping. My bet is some real-world tie, one which is time consuming and expensive to create. From there it should be possible to create moderation tools that keep the rest going. An example of a real world tie would be a trust network that requires status with in-person communities and local businesses. And not just "accept t…
(In some cases it actually is far cheaper to pay a small moderator pool a good wage than to pay an entire community a bad wage to "crowd-moderate" if you actually test the business plan versus alternatives.)
It's really funny every time a "we don't censor" platform pops up catering too the American right they speed run going from moderation == censorship to we're moderating our platform in record time. Turns out moderation is really important to make a platform for a community.
How is that funny? Every platform has to block illegal content. Every platform wants to block low value content like spam. Many platforms want to block obscenity and pornography. None of this is in any way news to any of the platforms you’re alluding to. The interesting distinction between platforms is not whether they moderate, but what lawful and non-abusive (of the platform itself) content they permit. Edit: Child…
1. They have to moderate the content that got them kicked off the original platform, because it turns out nobody wants to buy ad space on a forum dedicated to why the Jews are responsible for all of the world's evils; and
2. They choose to moderate dissenting political opinions, which is just bald hypocrisy.
I'll never forget having to be a moderator for a somewhat popular forum back in the day and oh man did I learn how a few people can make your life hell. One thing not mentioned many times in these discussions are the poor moderators. Having to look at all that stuff, some of which can be very disturbing or shocking (think death, gore, etc as well as the racy things) really takes a toll on the mind. The more automatio…
Yup, was the designated person to report all child porn for our photo-sharing website. It was horrific. Some of those images still haunt me today, they were so awful. And the way the reporting to the NCMEC[0] server worked, you had to upload every single image individually. They did not accept zip files or anything at the time. It was a giant web form that would take about forty image files at once.
Here's a thought. Have a platform where identity is verified. Users can post publicly or within their circle. Any illegal or fraudulent content can be handled by the legal system due to the lack of anonymity. Beyond that, let users form groups for topics like reddit. Where does this fall down?
That could be considered only a risk if the moderation is bad, but bad moderation becomes more likely over time due to feedback loops. An optimally permissive moderator will risk inviting an overly strict moderator due to that permissiveness. An overly restrictive moderator will not. There is a greater likelihood of moderation becoming increasingly restrictive over time because the moderation narrows the pool of moderators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> moralization of nudity Even porn sites need moderation. Trying to stop sexual abuse and child pornography isn't weird moralization. > and it's 100% not required there at all I'm not super familiar with the darkweb, but I assume that darkweb platforms also have active moderation, even if it's only to keep griefers out. Pornography is not the only use case for moderation.
>Trying to stop sexual abuse and child pornography isn't weird moralization. How does moderation of content prevent sexual abuse or CP? If anything I'd argue it creates more, because those that seek the images instead have to produce their own if they cannot find them.
This article opens up with an anecdote about policing morality and imposing one's own local norms on the legal speech of others. NSFW is a euphemism. Please don't push your American puritanical worldview on every user of your UGC platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We shadow ban abusive users on Fly.io and it works great. Everything seems to work right up until they try to connect to a deployed app. It took me a while to realize that ramping up the frustration level is, itself, a helpful deterrent.
Are you doing this because of resource usage? If resources are free then you could even actually deploy their app and either whitelist it for their own IP or only allow very few requests before taking it down. This would be even more frustrating and could ruin whatever they plan to do with their abusive app in the first place. Let's say they deploy their malware/phishing page, test it a couple of times (possibly from…
We also get the less resource intensive, but still harmful abusive apps that port scan the internet. Those are relatively easy to detect. We generally don't want to be a source of port scans so we shut them off pretty quickly.