4 ms·
It's kind of unfortunate that there's no easy way to scope the internet down to a smaller group of participants, for small time operations like local news sites
by gowanus 8y ago
It's kind of unfortunate that there's no easy way to scope the internet down to a smaller group of participants, for small time operations like local news sites.
Local news doesn't want to include audience participation from as far away as another time zone, or another state, but even then, geographic exclusions aren't an entirely correct exclusion criteria, since former residents of a local region may wish to participate from afar, because they still tune into home town news, after moving to new territory.
Real world names freeze out lots of participation, because taking ownership of an "incorrect" (contentious) opinion can have permanent consequences to one's reputation.
The real name and/or social credibility fix, is a blunt force trauma solution, to keep out obnoxious people, and isolate discourse to limited subgroups. But another problem is, even without being obnoxious, non-professional participants frequently go off-topic and off-script.
Pseudonyms almost certainly require painstaking, labor intensive moderation, and a skillful attention devoted to selectively ascribing relevance to conversation.
Most local operations just want to know there's an audience with a pulse, but providing that audience with a platform and a voice is another matter entirely.
- Eridrus 8y agoOne option is to do what illicit sites have done forever: require an invite, such that the bad deeds of the invitee reflect on the inviter. Doesn't require real names on the site, but the inviter knows who they are inviting.
- scarejunba 8y agoLobste.rs, for instance
- rpvnwnkl 8y agoFacebook Auth is an easy step for web moderators to take, and is helpful from a marketing/analytics perspective as well. I wonder if requiring a third-party “real person” auth like Facebook wouldn’t be so detrimental (in the contrxt of this discussion) if your user account could be publicly anonymous. For example, the site owners know who you are, but the comments section just sees whatever name/avatar you’ve chosen for that particular site. A gated community, but you don’t have to wear a name tag once you’re in? I suspect those are already in use, if anyone has examples feel free to share.
- gowanus 8y agoFor that to work, Facebook Auth would have to raise barriers against open, public identification, while acknowledging that the authenticated account is going to be disclosed to the site owner, which is a confusing layer of deflection. I don't think the rational basis for the nuance of that negotiation would reach end users or site owners. Both would likely complain that it offers no assurance of safety, and remains a disappointing compromise. The choice to adopt nuanced tactics in furtherance of rewarding communication requires nuanced personalities at the reigns.
- abraham_lincoln 8y agoWhat about trained moderators?
- briandear 8y agoWho pays them?