Live data from Hacker News

Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

danluu.com

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I have a problem with a lot of the legal structure and incentives. If you measure in number of arrests you aren't solving the problems. I'm not sure there's any good metric to measure that. To take an analogy I'll mention the drug war. The main target was always low level drug dealers and users. They're easy to arrest and easy to say you're doing something. But they are fairly inconsequential to the busin…

I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom—while it's true that some small percentage of people would try, and get addicted to, drugs otherwise, the vast majority of addicts were people trying to fill a major hole in their lives. Treating addiction as a disease instead of a moral failing or a crime, legalizing drugs, and making sure that people who want to quit have resources…

> I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom

No argument here, and it should be unsurprising I agree, since I'm arguing to not go after users. But also remember we can say the same about internet fraud. I'm all for addressing the roots of the problem. Big fan of ensuring there's a floor to living standards. But admittedly that's not the whole problem and fixing these things is incredibly complex. But I would say treating the addiction is a different side since that's downstream of production. Though complex because we do need to produce some drugs but we shouldn't need to spill blood to do so.

Re: Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

#212
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only purchase solid state storage, in person, from big-box stores. They have providence , maintaining custody from manufacturer to store shelf. Unlike (e.g.) Amazon, where all vendors' have "identical" items thrown into one big "for sale" bin.

> They have providence , maintaining custody from manufacturer to store shelf. That's called provenance, not providence.

Thank you, I had a hunch I mis-remembered.

Re: Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom—while it's true that some small percentage of people would try, and get addicted to, drugs otherwise, the vast majority of addicts were people trying to fill a major hole in their lives. Treating addiction as a disease instead of a moral failing or a crime, legalizing drugs, and making sure that people who want to quit have resources…

> I mean, the problem with the War on Drugs is that the drugs were only ever a symptom No argument here, and it should be unsurprising I agree, since I'm arguing to not go after users. But also remember we can say the same about internet fraud. I'm all for addressing the roots of the problem. Big fan of ensuring there's a floor to living standards. But admittedly that's not the whole problem and fixing these things i…

> But also remember we can say the same about internet fraud.

Indeed—that's basically my point, too! :-D

Re: Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

#214
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One builds systems out of humans, ML, and other computation. Ideally integrating the strengths of each, and doing fine-grained mutual compensation for the weaknesses of each. For instance, automated task management which delegates easy cases to ML, and orchestrates humans for harder cases. When a post is rated, a system ideally learns about the post, the poster, the rater, and the rating question. The candy machine w…

Sounds expensive. I don't see how a platform for user generated content such as X could do that profitably given that the expected value of each user is so low.

Certainly a high system complexity cost.

But consider all the social costs avoided. The burden of moderation and policy fights. The non-satisficing silos - "not here, but sort of there, but not really, want a little of both, so there's nowhere really, too bad, it would be nice". A wikipedia without deletionist-vs-inclusionist conflict, because both are supported, and fine grained - "my wp? inclusionist on programming languages, and deletionist on popular culture".

What if X could offer advertisers: everyone is on X all the time, so of course there's lots of ugly crazy, that's people; but you have excellent control of to whom, and in what contexts, your ads are shown. If you want your ads only on X/Mormon, X/PlumTV, or X/QAnon, but never near pets talking like a pirate, we've got you. Boycotting X infrastructure would be like boycotting the internet or print - not the right level of granularity. Whoever or whatever you wish to boycott, X is there for you - X/BoycottX is quite popular

Re: Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

#215

I think the post underestimates the scope of these problems. It touches on it briefly, but I've mostly come to believe that it is in general bad for companies to become extremely large. It's not just an issue of content moderation. One reason that the article does touch on is the detachment from support. Large companies no longer need to care about the individual consumer, so they stop doing so. A sort of corollary f…

> it is in general bad for companies to become extremely large. The core idea of your post is "moral hazard"[0], which describes a state where you are divorced from the consequence of your decision. Your idea also uses the intuition that the risk of moral hazard grows quickly with the scale of human endeavor, and reaches ~1 at a certain size. Moral hazard encompasses both the harm you do to others directly, as with m…

I see that TFA actually links series that covers it extensively https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-ma...

https://thezvi.wordpress.com/category/immoral-mazes-sequence...

Re: Diseconomies of scale in fraud, spam, support, and moderation

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's probably a guy who knows someone who can cook meth, rather than a servant of some kingpin who is running a massive drug conglomerate hiding who knows where.

Okay? But somewhere down the line is the person cooking meth. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

And somewhere down the line means in a random kitchen for a while and then dismantled, not a huge lab buried somewhere. Nobody does more for the sake of selling drugs, unless they use drug money to fund their revolution, guerrila war, or whatever like that. Think more of lock stock and two smoking barrels, rather than breaking bad.
Post reply on HN