[deleted]
Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
61–70 of 128 posts
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the point though, right? Encouraging illegal activity may not itself be illegal but moderators aren’t arbiters of the law, they’re protecting the integrity of the website for the intended user base. If you want to allow people to encourage cocaine usage on your website, you have to be prepared to deal with law enforcement — because when someone follows the advice and dies with the website open on their compute…
> the website operators will get a call Then what we actually need isn't more content moderation, we need explicit laws explicitly _protecting_ website operators and any other publishers who are actually following the law.
I mean not really... sometimes some content just sucks and you don't want it on your site regardless of its legality.
Start shitposting here on HN and see how long your posts hang around.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#63In the tutorial, the very first card I was presented with was reported for being "illegal", and the description was (from memory. I might not have it quite right) "A post about the movie Cocaine Bear recommends doing cocaine while watching the movie and contains a photograph of a bag of white powder with the hashtag #cocaine" That... seems like an obvious joke to me. And even if it's not, while "doing cocaine" is ill…
That’s the point though, right? Encouraging illegal activity may not itself be illegal but moderators aren’t arbiters of the law, they’re protecting the integrity of the website for the intended user base. If you want to allow people to encourage cocaine usage on your website, you have to be prepared to deal with law enforcement — because when someone follows the advice and dies with the website open on their compute…
How can one protect the integrity of a website if they're undermining free speech rights and simultaneously derailing conversations and fragmenting communities while doing so?
Though we didn't first define what "integrity" meant, it now seems impossible to formulate a meaning for it that isn't absurdly ironic given the actions performed to protect it.
One could be forgiven if we were talking about a forum or website that exists in a totalitarian regime like China... better that there be some conversation than the only other option, none at all. But in the US or Europe or any other nation that considers itself even minimally enlightened?
Moderation is not the solution. It may even be the problem.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#64A neat game, but my enjoyment of it is somewhat dulled since I watch my mom play this in real life on a daily basis - her job is moderating product reviews.
i wonder does she know about gpt
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#65Requires closer looks too often.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of difficult judgment calls in content moderating. But the difference between "illegal content" and "content that promotes breaking the law" isn't really one of them to be made by the moderator. This is just bad instructions from the game maker.
You don’t think content moderators have to deal with: “hey kid, you should go shoot up a school?” Just cleanly not in their domain?
I think that content moderators often have to deal with that issue, and they are given rules like "remove posts that suggest that others commit violent acts" or something like that. And those are reasonable rules for moderators to enforce.
But the rules that this game give do not include that rule, and it's a mark of a poorly designed game that the rule says "don't allow illegal content" and then when you (correctly!) apply that rule, the game says "you should have not allowed this because it's suggesting that someone do something illegal". Those aren't the same rule!
ETA: Like lots of places have rules against reposting copyrighted content. But a post that said "Psst, kid, you should go download a movie from the Pirate Bay" should not be removed under that rule. Because the content of the post isn't copyrighted. If they also had a rule that said "don't encourage piracy", they could reasonably take it down under that rule.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the point though, right? Encouraging illegal activity may not itself be illegal but moderators aren’t arbiters of the law, they’re protecting the integrity of the website for the intended user base. If you want to allow people to encourage cocaine usage on your website, you have to be prepared to deal with law enforcement — because when someone follows the advice and dies with the website open on their compute…
Certainly social media companies can choose to disallow suggestions that people take illegal actions. But that's not what the moderation policy for "illegal" content says. It says "Content that violates local or international laws or regulations." I don't know all the laws of all the countries, but my local laws make very little content illegal. Various types of obscenity, true threats, etc. "You should do drugs whil…
You know, I'm nearly certain that that post does violate some "international law or regulation".
Do I know which one? Nope, not a clue. But many countries have pretty weak free speech protections, and pretty strict drug laws. The idea that that violates none of them seems quite unlikely.
The fact that your local laws have strong free speech protections doesn't really matter when the criteria is "local or international". If it violates north korea's, china's, or singapores laws it still violates that restriction.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the website operators will get a call Then what we actually need isn't more content moderation, we need explicit laws explicitly _protecting_ website operators and any other publishers who are actually following the law.
I mean not really... sometimes some content just sucks and you don't want it on your site regardless of its legality. Start shitposting here on HN and see how long your posts hang around.
But then that becomes a site owner editorial decision rather than a fear of legal reprisals decision.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly social media companies can choose to disallow suggestions that people take illegal actions. But that's not what the moderation policy for "illegal" content says. It says "Content that violates local or international laws or regulations." I don't know all the laws of all the countries, but my local laws make very little content illegal. Various types of obscenity, true threats, etc. "You should do drugs whil…
You know, I'm nearly certain that that post does violate some "international law or regulation". Do I know which one? Nope, not a clue. But many countries have pretty weak free speech protections, and pretty strict drug laws. The idea that that violates none of them seems quite unlikely. The fact that your local laws have strong free speech protections doesn't really matter when the criteria is "local or internationa…
Maybe the policy should be rewritten then. If no content is allowed that violates any country's free speech restriction, then it probably means the site will remove criticism of the government of North Korea.
Re: Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I'm nearly certain that that post does violate some "international law or regulation". Do I know which one? Nope, not a clue. But many countries have pretty weak free speech protections, and pretty strict drug laws. The idea that that violates none of them seems quite unlikely. The fact that your local laws have strong free speech protections doesn't really matter when the criteria is "local or internationa…
Maybe the policy should be rewritten then. If no content is allowed that violates any country's free speech restriction, then it probably means the site will remove criticism of the government of North Korea.
[deleted]