Is content moderation a dead end? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#31

Post by bjt2n3904 » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

This article is absolutely fantastic. Excellently written.

I've always maintained Facebook made a mistake when they took responsibility for misinformation posted on their platform. Now, four years later, they're continuing to double down on this stance, and forming "ministries of truth".

Freedom of speech is a powerful concept, and does not like to be stifled by types that argue it should only apply to the government. When you fight against that principle, you win in the short term, and lose in the long term. We are now starting to see those ugly realities of the long term losses, four years later.

The author is touching on something prescient here, but I disagree with some of his observations. For example, that the solution to "virus scanners" playing whack a mole was to move to cloud computing. (The solution was clearly to improve software, with things like memory safe programming langauges. Moving to cloud computing reduces freedom, not enhances it, and centralizes all the valuables in a single location a la Tower of Babel.)

If you remove the "algorithmic feed" mechanic, much of the abuse vanishes instantly. I am shown what came latest. Not this weird algorithmic mash of content that has been gamified for my attention. RSS is the way to go.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#32

Post by inetknght » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

Guilty by association it is, then. And, no way to undo/pay for a negative score. This is a terrible solution.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#33

Post by cryptoz » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #24

cryptoz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my view the only proper way to handle content moderation is that every user of these “free“ social media platforms over the age of 18 should should be required to moderate some proportion every month to understand what’s actually going on. Does that mean no vetting at all of the moderators? Anybody can become a moderator? But then you have QAnon in large numbers moderating content on like the CNN Facebook page o…

Those are great points. I believe that there should be essentially no censorship at all, subject to First Amendment restrictions. Posts could be hidden to people based on age, political, or other preferences, but would always be accessible to adult users willing to sign a waiver. I believe very much that bad material no matter how disgusting is best handled through public exposure, not censorship.

The first amendment protects you from hosting content you don't want to host. Hosting providers must be allowed to remove content they don't want there or their rights are directly violated.

Do you think that a site should be forced to host other people's vile content?

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#34

Post by kingsuper20 » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

Any ex-Usenet moderators out there?

I don't remember this being such a huge deal, and there was always the alt groups.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#35

Post by paxys » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

Every system that relies on crowdsourcing and/or reputation to solve such problems is doomed to fail. Remember when manual curation and recommendation of products/places/content was supposed to be fully replaced by online ratings & reviews?

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#36

Post by im3w1l » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

This is a web of trust, except that you have a designated root.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#37

Post by engineeringwoke » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:57 PM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #7

We are lying to ourselves, and we are doing it through colonialization writ large, once again. People who use Twitter and Facebook seem to be completely unaware that thousands of content moderators in the Philippines are being subjected to images of utter depredation and cruelty by the minute because we refuse to take responsibility ourselves. History will not look well on what we did to these these heroic underpaid…

> thousands of content moderators in the Philippines

And those are good jobs for people. This is honestly a ridiculous argument. It's simply that technologists don't want to pay for content moderation so they are arguing that it isn't necessary because it is "Sisyphean", which curiously enough raises their margins. It couldn't be more cynical.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#38

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #16

endisneigh wrote: post #2

My response to the title is: "No, but it requires more resources than most are willing to admit or give." The crux of the issue is that there's no "cost" to be bad. If there was a "cost" then bad actors would go away for quickly. Any "cost" you impose will be diametrically opposed to popularity - but a low volume/unpopular site is unlikely to be abused to begin with.

Even with infinity resources available for manual human moderation, you eventually hit a wall where different sub-communities will simply have different standards for what is acceptable to them— what might be reasonable debate in one circle is gaslighting and triggering to people elsewhere. It's not really up to the platform to impose a global code of conduct, and attempting to do so (outside of banning the most obvi…

[deleted]

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#39

Post by PragmaticPulp » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

PicassoCTs wrote: post #10

Years ago, i suggested a algorithmic approach to moderation to a Open Source project i contribute too. They ultimately went another way (classic moderation), but the idea was pretty neat. You basically create a feudal vouching system, were highly engaged community members, vouch for others, who again vouch for others. If people in this "Dharma-tree" accumulate problematic behaviour points, the structure at first, bub…

I was part of solving a content moderation problem for a tech company forum once.

The most troublesome users were often the most prolific posters. The people who had a lot of free time on their hands to post every single day were often the most disgruntled, seizing every issue as a chance to stir up more controversy.

It was tough enough to reel in difficult users when they had no power. Giving extra power to people who posted the most would have only made the problem worse, not better.

The most valuable content came from users who didn't post that often, but posted valuable and well-received content occasionally. I'm not sure they would have much interest in moderating content, though, because they would rather produce content than deal with troublesome content from other people.

Content moderation is a pain. The trolls always have infinitely more free time than you do.

Re: Is content moderation a dead end?

#40

Post by nxpnsv » Tue, Apr 13, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

I'd love seeing an anonymous peer review approach, to post anything you need to review X other posts. Until there are N accepts posts are invisible. I think it could work, but I am sure HN can tell me how I am wrong :)