8 ms·

> 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

> 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
    Commenting systems are setup and enabled by the admins of the site. Otherwise you're just talking about Twitter or Mastodon.
    - unescape 9y ago
      We're talking about something like Twitter or Mastodon but (a) can be found using the original URL of the site, as in IPFS or content-addressable networking; and (b) uses distributed opt-in moderation, meta-moderation, and filtering; like a decentralized AdBlock. It's something that doesn't actually exist yet, but maybe will.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        So they're still associated with the site, but don't actually keep people on the site, site owners have no ability to screen content of these comments which are still associated with the site, and it seeks to deny revenue to the site. I'm sure you'll have hoards of sites signing up for that.
        unescape 9y ago
        No, the idea is that they don't sign up for it. It's independent of the originating site.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Except it's not, because you still want it to be associated with the site. If you just want to comment on something, you already have Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, your own blog, and probably a dozen other outlets. What you're asking for is the added legitimacy of the site itself, without their consent.
        unescape 9y ago
        Read the top-level comment from hello_there: In an ideal comment system I believe that articles, comments and moderation events should come from three different, decentralized streams (like Atom) that the end user can subscribe to individually and that are joined at the end users client. What he is asking for is the exact opposite of "the added legitimacy of the site itself". He's asking for a user interface to integrate content that does not come from the site itself. That would be a lot cooler than another comment moderation system, of which there are already multiple open-source implementations. Could someone at least provide an argument of why Mozilla Talk is better than the existing solutions?

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
  Commenting systems are setup and enabled by the admins of the site. Otherwise you're just talking about Twitter or Mastodon.
  - unescape 9y ago
    We're talking about something like Twitter or Mastodon but (a) can be found using the original URL of the site, as in IPFS or content-addressable networking; and (b) uses distributed opt-in moderation, meta-moderation, and filtering; like a decentralized AdBlock. It's something that doesn't actually exist yet, but maybe will.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      So they're still associated with the site, but don't actually keep people on the site, site owners have no ability to screen content of these comments which are still associated with the site, and it seeks to deny revenue to the site. I'm sure you'll have hoards of sites signing up for that.
      - unescape 9y ago
        No, the idea is that they don't sign up for it. It's independent of the originating site.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Except it's not, because you still want it to be associated with the site. If you just want to comment on something, you already have Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, your own blog, and probably a dozen other outlets. What you're asking for is the added legitimacy of the site itself, without their consent.
        unescape 9y ago
        Read the top-level comment from hello_there: In an ideal comment system I believe that articles, comments and moderation events should come from three different, decentralized streams (like Atom) that the end user can subscribe to individually and that are joined at the end users client. What he is asking for is the exact opposite of "the added legitimacy of the site itself". He's asking for a user interface to integrate content that does not come from the site itself. That would be a lot cooler than another comment moderation system, of which there are already multiple open-source implementations. Could someone at least provide an argument of why Mozilla Talk is better than the existing solutions?