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

Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

coralproject.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#81

Post by Kaiyou »

lapnitnelav wrote: post #71
Kaiyou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting there's no mean behavior on 4chan?

I find 4 chan to be an interesting experiment. Yes it mostly is a cesspool. Yes folks there are pretty much awful. But it's also extremely egalitarian. Everyone is on the same, whether you be an old * or a new *. I don't partake but I like to dive in and observe them. Fascinating, because as much as we'd like to deny it, 4chan is the whole spectrum of humanity.

4chan is unfiltered and there are a bunch of people that aren't able to handle this, so it's a self-selected pool of people that are capable of participating in unfiltered discussion. In other communities heavy filtering is going on. Comments get removed and accounts banned, so that the people that cannot handle unfiltered content won't leave.

Personally I think all content should be unfiltered and the people who cannot handle this, should learn it. Open discussion is difficult when you have to self-censor all the time. We have it so bad, there's even a bunch of words we're forbidden from using in filtered communities and it's sold as a good thing. Lots of ideas and opinions are also banned, which is really unfortunate. We tend to criticize China for exactly the same things that are completely normal for most of us. It's just that China bans different ideas.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#82

Post by davesmith1983 »

gdubs wrote: post #79
davesmith1983 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are working under the fallacy that diversity of opinion will be correlated somehow to arbitrary characteristics such as Race, Gender and Sexuality. This is patently not true.

Those characteristics aren’t arbitrary; they equate to an entirely different life experience. That means a more diverse set of viewpoints. “People who are different from one another in race, gender and other dimensions bring unique information and experiences [...]” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-mak...

Sorry assumptions about how an individual thinks based on their race, gender or sexuality is clearly a nonsense. You cannot point at any individual and know their thoughts. The best you can do is say "This demographic in this place tends to agree with this statement".

As for the the actual article you linked, the author herself has nice race-bait titles of work such as "The White standard: Racial bias in leader categorization", you can't seriously tell me that this is an objective body of work? There is also the piece she wrote called "Office Holiday Parties Highlight Racial Dissimilarities and Fail to Promote Team Unity" ... apparently the office party isn't safe from race based politics. Sorry but this sets of alarm bells in my head.

The piece itself doesn't cite any evidence for anything it claims.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#83

Post by Fellshard »

Noos wrote: post #78
ggm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I don't see these as accusations, I see these as curated engagement. The upside is there, if you know up-front its the basis of the engagement. If its applied retrospectively it sucks, for a number of people. But curation is not always bad. "it depends"

There's no "engagement." It just ends up with banal "I agree" posts that add nothing to the article. And it doesn't add many to them, Polygon's comment sections tend to be tiny and not worth reading, for example. You get better news and engagement on reddit.

They used to be larger, and I believe that restrictive, inconsistent moderation drove people away, but that's merely a guess of one probable cause.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#84

Post by Fellshard »

Kaiyou wrote: post #81
lapnitnelav wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find 4 chan to be an interesting experiment. Yes it mostly is a cesspool. Yes folks there are pretty much awful. But it's also extremely egalitarian. Everyone is on the same, whether you be an old * or a new *. I don't partake but I like to dive in and observe them. Fascinating, because as much as we'd like to deny it, 4chan is the whole spectrum of humanity.

4chan is unfiltered and there are a bunch of people that aren't able to handle this, so it's a self-selected pool of people that are capable of participating in unfiltered discussion. In other communities heavy filtering is going on. Comments get removed and accounts banned, so that the people that cannot handle unfiltered content won't leave. Personally I think all content should be unfiltered and the people who can…

Governments and online communities are two very different things, and the key concern with government censorship is that there is no recourse or alternative.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#85

Post by VvR-Ox »

theon144 wrote: post #38

The focus on "identifying journalists", muting "annoying" voices, the "RESPECT" button and pushing specific comments to the top by featuring them kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth... And I would be the last to argue that comment sections below news articles are anything but a cesspool - they're notoriously bad! But I'm just not sure a control model this heavy handed and lip-servicey is the right approach.

I think this may be based on how you'd like the people to act.

But from my experience there is situations and places where someone has to look for people and help them to stop their destructive behavior.

In my opinion this problem is connected to the "tragedy of the commons" and maybe some day we (humans) will overcome these flaws but until then they need some leadership, control and sanctions (just like kids and teenagers when they grow up).

Of course there is people who can behave all time when they communicate and who don't leave their trash everywhere they go but I think it's a minority.

While saying this I'm very aware of the fact that I wrote a lot of bad comments myself. Maybe such a system could help people like me, I'd be glad to see it in action to find out.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#86

Post by krapp »

Kaiyou wrote: post #81
lapnitnelav wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find 4 chan to be an interesting experiment. Yes it mostly is a cesspool. Yes folks there are pretty much awful. But it's also extremely egalitarian. Everyone is on the same, whether you be an old * or a new *. I don't partake but I like to dive in and observe them. Fascinating, because as much as we'd like to deny it, 4chan is the whole spectrum of humanity.

4chan is unfiltered and there are a bunch of people that aren't able to handle this, so it's a self-selected pool of people that are capable of participating in unfiltered discussion. In other communities heavy filtering is going on. Comments get removed and accounts banned, so that the people that cannot handle unfiltered content won't leave. Personally I think all content should be unfiltered and the people who can…

4chan isn't unfiltered. Every community has its culture with its accepted norms and taboos, to say nothing of the requirement of any site on the open web to ban illegal content like child porn, and many like 4chan which also ban threats of violence and brigading. The boards on 4chan aren't immune to this simply because they don't use dedicated accounts. Not every board is /b/, and even they have their limits.

Having a high tolerance for vulgarity and dank Nazi memes is not the same as having open discussion or tolerance for opposing points of view. People who rally behind sites like 4chan, Voat and Gab in the name of "free speech" just want to be able to shitpost hate in comfort without consequence - they want their own filter, not freedom, certainly not for anyone who disagrees with them.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#87

Post by [deleted] »

Kaiyou wrote: post #68
antihero wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, 4chan, the bastion of respectful and productive online discourse.

I hear they've recently been pushing racist and edgy themes like family cohesion, Christianity and a fatphobic healthy lifestyle with exercise. \s

[deleted]

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#88

Post by repolfx »

jdavis703 wrote: post #44
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. Reading "Five Myths of Community Design" on the same site [1] left me kind of wondering if they really built a service people would want to use. Personally, I've always thought the "like" model of modern online interaction is broken, but my idea about fixing it would be to add "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons, but only display the sum the two as a measure of engagement. [1] https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myth…

You need more than agree and disagree to measure engagement, otherwise you're just measuring polarization. For example you might want to measure several reactions such as: interesting, funny, angering and sad.

For example you might want to measure several reactions such as: interesting, funny, angering and sad.

Slashdot does that. To vote for a post you have to pick an adjective. I always thought it worked well, because it showed what kind of content would be valued. For example "funny" is an adjective you can pick, which signals the site valued funny comments. I had some great laughs reading it back in the day.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#89

Post by krapp »

Kaiyou wrote: post #68
antihero wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, 4chan, the bastion of respectful and productive online discourse.

I hear they've recently been pushing racist and edgy themes like family cohesion, Christianity and a fatphobic healthy lifestyle with exercise. \s

And "ironically" inspiring white supremacists to commit mass murder and shout them out in their manifestos.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#90

Post by ianbicking »

KajMagnus wrote: post #25
ianbicking wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It started as a Mozilla Foundation project, and then Vox Media took it over.

Why didn't Mozilla continue leading the project? (If you happen to know) Here's a blog post about the change: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/22/the-coral-project-i... It writes: "After 3.5 years at Mozilla, the time is right for Coral software to move further into the journalism space, and grow with the support of an organization grounded in that industry" , and "... The Coral Project will receive the backing…

I don't really have inside knowledge, but I think if the opportunity comes to graduate a project to external management and resourcing the Mozilla Foundation is probably going to take it. Quite a few projects are managed by Mozilla Foundation but receive very substantive external funding, and I think that was the case for Coral. That grant-based funding is often time limited and requires a bunch of hustling, so having a long-term committed sponsor would be attractive.
Post reply on HN