Ex-Reddit CEO on Twitter moderation

This is effectively impossible because of the bullshit asymmetry principle[1]. It's easier to create content that needs moderation than it is to moderate it. In general, there is a fundamental asymmetry to life that it takes less effort to destroy than it does to create, less work to harm than heal. With a slightly sharpened piece of metal and about a newton of force, you can end a life. No amount of effort can resurrect it.

It simply doesn't scale to let bad actors cause all the harm they want and rely on good actors to clean up their messes after the fact. The harm must be prevented before it does damage.

> make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc).

The simplest approach would be no API at all, but that won't stop scammers and bad actors. It's effectively impossible to prohibit screen scrapers.

> Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.

This is, I think, the best idea. If having an identity and sharing content costs actual money, you can at least make spamming not be cost effective. But that still doesn't eliminate human bad actors griefing others. Some are happy to pay to cause mayhem.

There is no simple technical solution here. Fundamentally, the value proposition of a community is the other good people you get to connect to. But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. For a community to thrive, you've got to encourage the good behaviors and police the bad ones. That takes work and human judgement.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

The end result is … well, 4Chan.

2. "Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work. User's don't want to have constantly police their feeds and block people, topics, sites, etc. It's also work that never ends. Bad actors jump from one identity to the next. There are no "static" identifiers that are reliable enough for a user to trust.

3. Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with. And they're also not interested in spending time white-listing specific accounts they "know" are good.

Even the best people we know have bad days. But you have probably also encountered people in your life who have consistent patterns of being selfish, destructive, toxic, or harmful.

Customised filters for anyone, but I am talking about filters completely under the control of the user. Maybe running locally. We can wrap ourselves in a bubble but better that than having a bubble designed by others.

I think AI will make spam irrelevant over the next decade by switching from searching and reading to prompting the bot. You don't ever need to interface with the filth, you can have your polite bot present the results however you please. It can be your conversation partner and you get to control its biases as well.

Internet AI agent Human

(the web browser of the future, the actual web browser runs in a sandbox under the AI)

If you have a billboard with someone being raped beneath it and a photo goes viral, no one would blame the company advertising on the billboard. Frankly, no one will associate the two to change their purchasing habits.

The reason corporations care are the ESG scores and activist employees.

Also these brands still advertise in places where public executions will happen (Saudi Arabia). No one is complaining there.