4 ms·

/r/science should absolutely get to do that. I should clarify here. If a specific general topic subreddit like /r/science uses heavy moderation to make the bes

/r/science should absolutely get to do that. I should clarify here. If a specific general topic subreddit like /r/science uses heavy moderation to make the best science-oriented subreddit, then this is great. There is a problem, however, when interests outside of the specific general topic start to leak in. A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. (A fair, non-extreme reading of nature/nurture reflects that biological reality is messy and that there is some influence from both.) How does one draw the line? There can be only one /r/science, if /r/science should become ideologically subborned and biased, it effectively makes the whole voice of reddit science ideologically biased. The same question arises for cliques and cronyism. I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. EDIT: In a way, it's the same logic as a judge ruling that the president shouldn't block people on twitter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945

masklinn 8y ago
> A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. That's not an example that's a strawman. > How does one draw the line? /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. > I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. Garbage? > This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  That's not an example that's a strawman. An odd thing to say, considering that the two examples have opposing left/right political vectors. I think you are reacting to this discussion as if it were an attack on /r/science. I have nothing in particular against /r/science. It's just that using the name as an example is clearer than saying /r/some-generic-subject-area. /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. That is a good set of rules, which seem well constructed for the purpose of excluding such bias. /r/science has the particular advantage of being attached to disciplines/fields which have good intellectual hygiene. There are other areas of general interest which have the particular disadvantage of being attached to fields where cronyism and intellectual dishonesty are rampant. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality? You couldn't do it with upvote volume. AI isn't yet up to the task. Perhaps moderation is the only solution. (Perhaps metamoderation?) Reddit did luck out with /r/science. Other areas drew the short straw and are highly biased and crony-moderated.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mncharity 8y ago
> There can be only one /r/science, That's a design choice. Generic broadcast is easier to implement than personalization. It's been known to be a poor design choice for large-scale social media since before USENET's Eternal September. It was especially clear each September before. But broadcast is easy, so here we still are on reddit/HN. Personalization is the design concept that different people see different content in the "same place". Or even the same person, but at different times of day, with their varying preferences. When you want to relax with puns, you can see puns. And when you wish to ask or answer inexpert questions, you can do that. And when you wish to see only high-quality expert discussion, you can see only that. So shifts in demographics needn't destabilize communities. "When calculating my view, severely deemphasize input from people who have joined since September." Bad needn't drive out good. We've known how to do this better for decades. And it's very important for society. But... here we still are. Here we still choose to be. Someone please please disrupt this.

masklinn 8y ago

> A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. That's not an example that's a strawman. > How does one draw the line? /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. > I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. Garbage? > This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality?

stcredzero 8y ago
That's not an example that's a strawman. An odd thing to say, considering that the two examples have opposing left/right political vectors. I think you are reacting to this discussion as if it were an attack on /r/science. I have nothing in particular against /r/science. It's just that using the name as an example is clearer than saying /r/some-generic-subject-area. /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. That is a good set of rules, which seem well constructed for the purpose of excluding such bias. /r/science has the particular advantage of being attached to disciplines/fields which have good intellectual hygiene. There are other areas of general interest which have the particular disadvantage of being attached to fields where cronyism and intellectual dishonesty are rampant. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality? You couldn't do it with upvote volume. AI isn't yet up to the task. Perhaps moderation is the only solution. (Perhaps metamoderation?) Reddit did luck out with /r/science. Other areas drew the short straw and are highly biased and crony-moderated.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mncharity 8y ago

> There can be only one /r/science, That's a design choice. Generic broadcast is easier to implement than personalization. It's been known to be a poor design choice for large-scale social media since before USENET's Eternal September. It was especially clear each September before. But broadcast is easy, so here we still are on reddit/HN. Personalization is the design concept that different people see different content in the "same place". Or even the same person, but at different times of day, with their varying preferences. When you want to relax with puns, you can see puns. And when you wish to ask or answer inexpert questions, you can do that. And when you wish to see only high-quality expert discussion, you can see only that. So shifts in demographics needn't destabilize communities. "When calculating my view, severely deemphasize input from people who have joined since September." Bad needn't drive out good. We've known how to do this better for decades. And it's very important for society. But... here we still are. Here we still choose to be. Someone please please disrupt this.