21–30 of 429 posts
The internet itself is unmoderated in any useful sense for content, yet it has lived longer than most of these cheesy "moderated" products that seek to impose their morality on you.
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 automation the less moderators have to deal with and then usually its the tamer middle ground content.
Around 1 year ago we got hit badly on our [blogging platform][0] by people/groups submitting fake customer support description of other big companies, either being Microsoft, Facebook, Comcast etc. Rolled out a machine learning model and trained it on the database. 99% of them vanished. Next day, the machine didn't work and success rate was around 5%. Found out, they have learned the trick and now using symbols from…
The internet itself is unmoderated in any useful sense for content, yet it has lived longer than most of these cheesy "moderated" products that seek to impose their morality on you.
Traditional, non-social, websites have single or known-group authors. When one of them is defaced or modified we call it "hacking" not "unmoderated content." We assume NASA's site has NASA-posted content. We assume Apple's site has Apple-posted content.
Sites with different standards for what they'd publish have been around for decades (for gore, for porn, etc) but many of these still exist in a traditional curated-by-someone fashion, or are more open to UGC but still have some level of moderation.
Around 1 year ago we got hit badly on our [blogging platform][0] by people/groups submitting fake customer support description of other big companies, either being Microsoft, Facebook, Comcast etc. Rolled out a machine learning model and trained it on the database. 99% of them vanished. Next day, the machine didn't work and success rate was around 5%. Found out, they have learned the trick and now using symbols from…
The internet itself is unmoderated in any useful sense for content, yet it has lived longer than most of these cheesy "moderated" products that seek to impose their morality on you.
Unmoderated? Probably 99% of traffic goes to the same top 500 sites which are heavily moderated.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-dominates-internet-traffic-...
Around 1 year ago we got hit badly on our [blogging platform][0] by people/groups submitting fake customer support description of other big companies, either being Microsoft, Facebook, Comcast etc. Rolled out a machine learning model and trained it on the database. 99% of them vanished. Next day, the machine didn't work and success rate was around 5%. Found out, they have learned the trick and now using symbols from…
What about not treating users like kiddies needing supervision? I think the Silicone Valley MVP TrendySpeak crowd needs to open eyes to the realities of life. Slashdot is a very peculiar case of near no spam filtering, yet very good user content moderation Kuro5 was also kind of interesting with its old user rating system.
Freenet/lbry/tor hidden sites all exists (and get used all the time) and it's 100% not required there at all. I hope at some point weird moralization of nudity will stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The author does not make a sufficient case of why content moderation is necessary, and doesn't even touch client-side moderation.
The article is about business running platforms with UGC. While free forums on the darknet might get away with a tad more lax policies, if you’re a registered business hoping to make any money you won’t have a choice but to moderate in some way. At the very least it will be to follow your country laws, and more often than not your clients will require you to do so.
> you won’t have a choice but to moderate in some way
This is the way that moderation has been done in the past 10-15 years, but does it have to be? Why couldn't a platform provide user-level controls over what they see instead of making those decisions for them? Early forum software actually did somewhat of a good job of this, and I remember building phpBB extensions that enabled more user-level control. Even with this you can go from super granular to just a couple of primary options. It becomes a tagging/filtering mechanism on behalf of the client.
Edit: UGC platforms may discover that there's some value in finding what filtering options their users use.