6 ms·

The end user should always be in control.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
You say that, but have you considered the downsides? Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments, and site now has comments all over it that they have no editorial control over whatsoever. People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does?
- unescape 9y ago
  The musician can display whatever they want on their website; they don't have to host content they don't like. In the "dream" commenting system, the comments are independent; you can apply your own filters and fetch comments from sources the site owner may not approve of.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    But they're still associated with that site, and that musician.
    - unescape 9y ago
      Only in the sense that someone who makes a Wix site that says "Neil Young Sux" is associated with Neil Young.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I disagree. I don't think this is like that at all. Especially given now that comments are displayed on the actual site in question. If you're going to say it's something separate, then now you're talking about Twitter or, more likely, Mastodon.
        unescape 9y ago
        If you look at the top-level comment you're replying to, we're describing "an ideal commenting system", not Mozilla Talk.
- hello_there 9y ago
  > Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments In my mind it would be the users, not the site owners that would enable the comments. > People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does? My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to. Perhaps some mechanisms could be put into the system to make it easy for site owners to suggest a "default" moderation stream that the end-users can opt-in to. In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary cooperation with its users, but it wouldn't be able to censor opinions that it didn't agree with, because the end users would always be in control of how its stream is filtered and would always be able to verify that on-topic posts aren't censored.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Isn't this now Mastodon? If it's not actually connected to the site in question? "My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to." That sounds like a pretty complex thing to do, which doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." "In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary cooperation with its users, but it wouldn't be able to censor opinions that it didn't agree with, because the end users would always be in control of how its stream is filtered and would always be able to verify that on-topic posts aren't censored." I don't believe that's actually a problem, though. You can always go make your own site if you want your voice heard.
    - unescape 9y ago
      doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Comments and moderation are independent of the site, not on the site. If distributed commenting and moderation is too complex to implement, then we need to move to network designs that make it simpler.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago

You say that, but have you considered the downsides? Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments, and site now has comments all over it that they have no editorial control over whatsoever. People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does?

unescape 9y ago
The musician can display whatever they want on their website; they don't have to host content they don't like. In the "dream" commenting system, the comments are independent; you can apply your own filters and fetch comments from sources the site owner may not approve of.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  But they're still associated with that site, and that musician.
  - unescape 9y ago
    Only in the sense that someone who makes a Wix site that says "Neil Young Sux" is associated with Neil Young.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I disagree. I don't think this is like that at all. Especially given now that comments are displayed on the actual site in question. If you're going to say it's something separate, then now you're talking about Twitter or, more likely, Mastodon.
      - unescape 9y ago
        If you look at the top-level comment you're replying to, we're describing "an ideal commenting system", not Mozilla Talk.
hello_there 9y ago
> Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments In my mind it would be the users, not the site owners that would enable the comments. > People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does? My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to. Perhaps some mechanisms could be put into the system to make it easy for site owners to suggest a "default" moderation stream that the end-users can opt-in to. In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary cooperation with its users, but it wouldn't be able to censor opinions that it didn't agree with, because the end users would always be in control of how its stream is filtered and would always be able to verify that on-topic posts aren't censored.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Isn't this now Mastodon? If it's not actually connected to the site in question? "My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to." That sounds like a pretty complex thing to do, which doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." "In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary cooperation with its users, but it wouldn't be able to censor opinions that it didn't agree with, because the end users would always be in control of how its stream is filtered and would always be able to verify that on-topic posts aren't censored." I don't believe that's actually a problem, though. You can always go make your own site if you want your voice heard.
  - unescape 9y ago
    doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs." I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Comments and moderation are independent of the site, not on the site. If distributed commenting and moderation is too complex to implement, then we need to move to network designs that make it simpler.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago