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

Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#21

Post by lambdadmitry »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #19
tunesmith wrote: post #2

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far i…

Facebook and Twitter already give every user full moderation powers by allowing them complete control over who/what they follow.

That's not completely true, as both (Facebook being worse as usual) will put "recommended"/"promoted" stuff on your timeline.

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#22

Post by codingdave »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #19
tunesmith wrote: post #2

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far i…

Facebook and Twitter already give every user full moderation powers by allowing them complete control over who/what they follow.

That isn't moderation, that is curation. It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#23

Post by trevyn »

flockonus wrote: post #8
tunesmith wrote: post #2

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far i…

Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

What’s the state of the art here? Is it solvable but nobody’s implemented it yet?

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#24

Post by saurik »

trevyn wrote: post #23
flockonus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

What’s the state of the art here? Is it solvable but nobody’s implemented it yet?

The best known "in the field" solution is Proof of Work, and the best contender being deployed now is Proof of Stake.

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#25

Post by jononor »

savanaly wrote: post #4

I was interested by the following part: >COWEN: Now, as you know, Wikipedia is open. It’s free. It doesn’t have ads. It’s a dream of the early tech utopians. Why is it the only surviving dream of that kind that has persisted? >WALES: Well, it’s an interesting thing, and I’m not sure it’s the only, but it’s certainly the most famous and the largest. Can HN think of any other examples? Funny enough I immediately though…

Stack Overflow, and the other Stack Exchange sites, could be another example. Content is licensed CC-BY-SA. Publically accessible, free as-in-beer. User moderated. There are some ads however, but quite minor in my opinion.

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#26

Post by saurik »

dmagee wrote: post #3
tunesmith wrote: post #2

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far i…

would that turn into mob justice though?

Tyranny of the Majority is somewhat brutal--by definition--to minorities :(. The hope that the majority is actually cool with everything seems flawed to me as the majority seems at least mildly puritan and racist, and so you are going to get a bias--even if only subtle--against non-hetero-cis-white-males :(.

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#29

Post by pessimizer »

tunesmith wrote: post #2

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far i…

I like how the moderation question has completely become the moderation of political content question, which has largely become the moderation of possible Russian or Chinese content, especially in the form of their chaos agents: people who aren't regime centrists (of whatever country they're discussing.)

Moderation has literally become moderation. We're sleepwalking into Western lèse-majesté laws.

> If there's a huge silent population of kind reasonable people

A silent majority, if you will (of people who agree with me about the reasonable boundaries of conversation.)

Re: Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives

#30

Post by onion2k »

jononor wrote: post #25
savanaly wrote: post #4

I was interested by the following part: >COWEN: Now, as you know, Wikipedia is open. It’s free. It doesn’t have ads. It’s a dream of the early tech utopians. Why is it the only surviving dream of that kind that has persisted? >WALES: Well, it’s an interesting thing, and I’m not sure it’s the only, but it’s certainly the most famous and the largest. Can HN think of any other examples? Funny enough I immediately though…

Stack Overflow, and the other Stack Exchange sites, could be another example. Content is licensed CC-BY-SA. Publically accessible, free as-in-beer. User moderated. There are some ads however, but quite minor in my opinion.

Stack is just burning through a giant pile of VC money at the moment (latest round was an $85m Series E back in July). When that runs out they'll start to ramp up the adverts and the paid user features.
Post reply on HN