Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Decentralised content moderation

martin.kleppmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#71

Post by edoceo »

shuntress wrote: post #62
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you understand both how subsets work and what I intended to convey, no matter how much you dislike how the English language descriptively works.

Do you mean to convey that women are a subset of men and therefor since your statement applies to all men that it also applies to all women?

"men" in the OG post above meant: all humans. As in "it is the nature of man". As "mankind". Man/men can be used as for two meanings. One is Males and the other is All Humans

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#72

Post by Pfhreak »

iamsb wrote: post #63

My suggestion is to not indulge in any content moderation which is not illegal. Only take down content which is required by a court order. Limit use of automated content moderation only for easy to solve cases like child pornography. Why? It is fairly clear at this point that content moderation at internet scale is not possible. Why? A. Using other users to flag dangerous content is not working. Which users do you tr…

You realize that the approach you suggest pushes out a different set of people, right?

For example, a soldier with PTSD may want an environment that moderates content. Or a journalist with epilepsy may want a platform where people don't spam her with gifs designed to trigger epilepsy when she says something critical of a game release.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#73

Post by edoceo »

shuntress wrote: post #51
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is obviously that people very often do not want what they say they want. When a man says he supports freedom of speech, he isn't thinking about the speech that he wishes to limit as he finds it so abhorrent, and where that line lies differs from one man to the other. Such initiatives fail, as even when men come together and admit they allow for the most abhorrent of opinions to be censored, they seldom re…

Do women have this problem as well?

Yes

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#74

Post by Mindwipe »

enumjorge wrote: post #40
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is obviously that people very often do not want what they say they want. When a man says he supports freedom of speech, he isn't thinking about the speech that he wishes to limit as he finds it so abhorrent, and where that line lies differs from one man to the other. Such initiatives fail, as even when men come together and admit they allow for the most abhorrent of opinions to be censored, they seldom re…

Case in point, alt-right communities who champion “free speech” like Parler and in Reddit often ban people who express opinions they disagree with.

Indeed, Parler banned lots of speech. Especially breasts.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#75

Post by iamsb »

Pfhreak wrote: post #72
iamsb wrote: post #63

My suggestion is to not indulge in any content moderation which is not illegal. Only take down content which is required by a court order. Limit use of automated content moderation only for easy to solve cases like child pornography. Why? It is fairly clear at this point that content moderation at internet scale is not possible. Why? A. Using other users to flag dangerous content is not working. Which users do you tr…

You realize that the approach you suggest pushes out a different set of people, right? For example, a soldier with PTSD may want an environment that moderates content. Or a journalist with epilepsy may want a platform where people don't spam her with gifs designed to trigger epilepsy when she says something critical of a game release.

I understand. Most of those can be achieved using privacy and sharing settings though and does not necessarily require content moderation.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#76

Post by daveoc64 »

iamsb wrote: post #63

My suggestion is to not indulge in any content moderation which is not illegal. Only take down content which is required by a court order. Limit use of automated content moderation only for easy to solve cases like child pornography. Why? It is fairly clear at this point that content moderation at internet scale is not possible. Why? A. Using other users to flag dangerous content is not working. Which users do you tr…

So it would be OK for a kids TV show website to have Viagra ads on it?

Edit: I mean spam.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#77

Post by JulianMorrison »

It's worth remembering that content moderation is an activity which causes people mental illness right now, because it's so unrelentingly awful. Attempts to decentralize this are going to be met with the problem that people don't want to be exposed to a stream of pedophilia, animal abuse, murderous racism and terrorist content and asked to score it for awfulness.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#78

Post by repartix »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #9

I've been thinking hard about decentralized content moderation, especially around chatrooms, for years. More specifically because I'm building a large, chatroom-like service for TV. I think it's evident from Facebook, Twitter, et al that human moderation of very dynamic situations is incredibly hard, maybe even impossible. I've been brewing up strategies of letting the community itself moderate because a machine real…

I'd like to know what dang learned moderating HN.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#79

Post by Blikkentrekker »

edoceo wrote: post #71
shuntress wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean to convey that women are a subset of men and therefor since your statement applies to all men that it also applies to all women?

"men" in the OG post above meant: all humans. As in "it is the nature of man". As "mankind". Man/men can be used as for two meanings. One is Males and the other is All Humans

It, as many words can, can be used for more than that. From the top of my head alone:

- a member of the Homo sapiens species.

- a member of the Homo genus

- a male member of any of the two above

- a male adult member of any of the two above

- a brave member of any of the two above

- a soldier

- a commoner

- any vaguely humanoidly shaped being

The word is certainly not special in that regard; I could give a similar list of “Russia” or “chess” for instance — but seemingly this word sometimes faces objection when the meaning the objector desires not be the one used, and I find that it is invariably a difference of gender lines in meaning if that be the case, and that it is rooted in gender politics.

I have never seen such wilfull denial of descriptive usage of the word “chess” and objections when it is used to, for instance, mean the entire family of games that descend from a common ancestor, or when it is used by metaphor for any exercise in great tactical planning.

The original meaning of the word “man” was the first I gave, all others arose by narrowing or widening it by analogy, much as what happened with “chess”.

Re: Decentralised content moderation

#80

Post by shuntress »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #70
shuntress wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean to convey that women are a subset of men and therefor since your statement applies to all men that it also applies to all women?

That is the usage of the word “man”, so noted in every dictionary, and backed up by millennia of descriptive usage. I'm quite sure you know that too, to be honest. It is something that every English speaker knows, but some act as if they not, because they do not like the actual descriptive, and historical usage of that word. From Merriam-Webster : (1): an individual human especially : an adult male human https://www.…

I do not see it that way.

But, fair enough. If it has always been that way we should keep it that way.

Post reply on HN