6 ms·

> Every single time that's been tried it tanked because either pathological arseholes overwhelmed everyone else, or no-one wanted to use it. Absolutely. I once

> Every single time that's been tried it tanked because either pathological arseholes overwhelmed everyone else, or no-one wanted to use it. Absolutely. I once ran a community that grew from 5 to 50 to 300+ people, and had this utopian vision that moderation wouldn't be necessary, we were intelligent, enlightened people who would have healthy discussions and hash out our disagreements in civil ways. Alas.

intended 10y ago
AH, the FIRST dream of any mod. That said, moderation and moderation tools - especially on reddit, are evolving. To the point that many issues which I thought were fatal, are now manageable (such as permanent noise to signal ratio attenuation). Unfortunately what keeps me up at night, is that the tools we are developing are straight up censorship bots and their proliferation on various subreddits, and eventually to all social platforms is beyond worrisome. Theres big brother, and then theres the more agile and nimble little brother.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  Here's an idea that's probably naive and that's been tried before and failed: what about individual moderation? Let users decide: "I never want to see anything from that guy ever again" (unless, say, 50 people I've upvoted upvote one of his comments). I can see why people would want to avoid such solution, with all the "filter bubble" rhetoric, but I can't see why it wouldn't be a viable option? In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a huge opportunity in that space, for whoever nails the mechanics correctly.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
  - sgc 10y ago
    RES etc have this, but there are millions of users; thus I have never used it because the idea of going down that rabbit hole is rather off-putting. I like your basic premise though. There is a lot of space between reddit's "everything the mods let you see" (whether you want it or not) and facebook's "only what your friends (or Zuck) want you to see", and the two extremes cause a lot of friction. Something much better is certainly possible.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    Slashdot has that with their friend-foe feature. You could assign anywhere between a +2 and -2 bonus to anyone you friended or foed. Additionally you could assign bonuses to anyone that friended or foed you. Comments only had a score range of +5 to -2 with -2 being completely hidden. So someone you foed at -2 could only show up for you if his comment got a +3. (Default view threshold is 1.)
    - function_seven 10y ago
      > Additionally you could assign bonuses to anyone that friended or foed you. I just some nostalgia for /. from this comment. People who friended or foed you were "fans" and "freaks", respectively.
  - stanmancan 10y ago
    Sounds like this would be a solution for a small community with a low growth rate. At any scale the chances of you running into a particular user diminishes. "Ignoring" 20% of a 100 member community isn't too difficult. But if that community is >500 suddenly that becomes quite a burden.
  - iza 10y ago
    That's how Hubski works and it's pretty great. However I'm not sure it would scale well if it had as many users as reddit.
    - dublinben 10y ago
      Hubski importantly applies that in a positive sense too. I only get content from users I actively choose to follow. There can be entire subcultures represented on the site that I will never be aware of.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    This is tricky because the desirable attributes that we're looking for in a utopian discussion medium all have dark downsides. Privacy and security require impenetrable anonymity... which in turn means that abusive users can simply abandon one troll or sock puppet account and pop up with another. As with Usenet, you'd end up having to buy a bigger hard drive just to keep your killfile up to date.
aptwebapps 10y ago
At what population level did things start to go noticeably South?
- sunshiney 10y ago
  For me, it happened at 325 users of a community group. Pia for sure. I truly wish people were more like cats sometimes -- a quick swipe and then friends again. :-)
- visakanv 10y ago
  It would get progressively 'worse' I think from 150, 200, 250, 300. The group eventually 'died' at 300. I should've instituted clearer rules and moderations once we hit about 75, or frankly, from day 1.

intended 10y ago

AH, the FIRST dream of any mod. That said, moderation and moderation tools - especially on reddit, are evolving. To the point that many issues which I thought were fatal, are now manageable (such as permanent noise to signal ratio attenuation). Unfortunately what keeps me up at night, is that the tools we are developing are straight up censorship bots and their proliferation on various subreddits, and eventually to all social platforms is beyond worrisome. Theres big brother, and then theres the more agile and nimble little brother.

davidivadavid 10y ago
Here's an idea that's probably naive and that's been tried before and failed: what about individual moderation? Let users decide: "I never want to see anything from that guy ever again" (unless, say, 50 people I've upvoted upvote one of his comments). I can see why people would want to avoid such solution, with all the "filter bubble" rhetoric, but I can't see why it wouldn't be a viable option? In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a huge opportunity in that space, for whoever nails the mechanics correctly.
- icebraining 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
- sgc 10y ago
  RES etc have this, but there are millions of users; thus I have never used it because the idea of going down that rabbit hole is rather off-putting. I like your basic premise though. There is a lot of space between reddit's "everything the mods let you see" (whether you want it or not) and facebook's "only what your friends (or Zuck) want you to see", and the two extremes cause a lot of friction. Something much better is certainly possible.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  Slashdot has that with their friend-foe feature. You could assign anywhere between a +2 and -2 bonus to anyone you friended or foed. Additionally you could assign bonuses to anyone that friended or foed you. Comments only had a score range of +5 to -2 with -2 being completely hidden. So someone you foed at -2 could only show up for you if his comment got a +3. (Default view threshold is 1.)
  - function_seven 10y ago
    > Additionally you could assign bonuses to anyone that friended or foed you. I just some nostalgia for /. from this comment. People who friended or foed you were "fans" and "freaks", respectively.
- stanmancan 10y ago
  Sounds like this would be a solution for a small community with a low growth rate. At any scale the chances of you running into a particular user diminishes. "Ignoring" 20% of a 100 member community isn't too difficult. But if that community is >500 suddenly that becomes quite a burden.
- iza 10y ago
  That's how Hubski works and it's pretty great. However I'm not sure it would scale well if it had as many users as reddit.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    Hubski importantly applies that in a positive sense too. I only get content from users I actively choose to follow. There can be entire subcultures represented on the site that I will never be aware of.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  This is tricky because the desirable attributes that we're looking for in a utopian discussion medium all have dark downsides. Privacy and security require impenetrable anonymity... which in turn means that abusive users can simply abandon one troll or sock puppet account and pop up with another. As with Usenet, you'd end up having to buy a bigger hard drive just to keep your killfile up to date.

aptwebapps 10y ago

At what population level did things start to go noticeably South?

sunshiney 10y ago
For me, it happened at 325 users of a community group. Pia for sure. I truly wish people were more like cats sometimes -- a quick swipe and then friends again. :-)
visakanv 10y ago
It would get progressively 'worse' I think from 150, 200, 250, 300. The group eventually 'died' at 300. I should've instituted clearer rules and moderations once we hit about 75, or frankly, from day 1.