4 ms·

> "There's no such thing as a neutral platform," This is a very weird, and pretty clearly false, statement. There is absolutely such a thing as a neutral platf

by darawk 7y ago

> "There's no such thing as a neutral platform," This is a very weird, and pretty clearly false, statement. There is absolutely such a thing as a neutral platform: A completely un-moderated forum is a neutral platform. We may or may not like what the outcome of that is, but it is neutral.

gmueckl 7y ago
No, unmoderated online platforms can easily become biased via some dominant groups of members that exhibit intolerance against views they don't share. The result is implicit moderation.
- simianparrot 7y ago
  The platform is still neutral, in your example, even if the community causes self-censorship or self-exclusion to "outsiders" by its dominance. The platform is the carrier, not the message.
- thu2111 7y ago
  There's no such thing as implicit moderation. There might be people getting sick of it and leaving, but that's not the same thing as moderation.
lidHanteyk 7y ago
There's obviously no such thing as neutrality, and thus there cannot be a neutral platform. (Similarly, there's no such thing as culturally-neutral technology.)
- darawk 7y ago
  Ok, explain to me in what way an unmoderated forum is non-neutral.
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    Typically, a forum has a listing of posts. What function enumerates the listing? If we sort by newest, then those who can post most frequently will dominate. If we sort by most comments, we'll get emotionbait; by deepest comment trees, most nuanced and controversial topics. Sorting by oldest prioritizes those who most frequently venture out to find new forums, which leads to domination by a network of well-connected people who discover new forums by systematically maintaining information asymmetry over forum creators. IRL example: Stock exchanges. Listings are sorted by freshness and causality, so being close to the exchange ends up dominating almost all other factors. More generally, this is the Reputation Problem: How can we possibly grant any sort of social credit to anonymous passerby without creating side incentives which will be immediately and horribly abused?
    - darawk 7y ago
      > If we sort by newest, then those who can post most frequently will dominate. If we sort by most comments, we'll get emotionbait; by deepest comment trees, most nuanced and controversial topics. Sorting by oldest prioritizes those who most frequently venture out to find new forums, which leads to domination by a network of well-connected people who discover new forums by systematically maintaining information asymmetry over forum creators. What if you allow people to choose their own preferred sort, and don't have a default (i.e. force them to explicitly choose)? > IRL example: Stock exchanges. Listings are sorted by freshness and causality, so being close to the exchange ends up dominating almost all other factors. I think I get what you're trying to say here, and I don't want to nitpick too much, but I don't think this is true. At least, if i'm understanding you correctly. The limit orderbook is a priority queue, sorted only partially by freshness, but mostly by proximity to the midpoint of the bid-ask spread. Being close to the exchange is important for certain high frequency strategies, but definitely not all of them. > More generally, this is the Reputation Problem: How can we possibly grant any sort of social credit to anonymous passerby without creating side incentives which will be immediately and horribly abused? Ya, it's a tricky problem. But I think it's a little early to call it an unsolvable problem. There are ways you can try to attack it, like proof of work or web of trust type systems. But yes, reputation is hard.

by darawk 7y ago

gmueckl 7y ago

No, unmoderated online platforms can easily become biased via some dominant groups of members that exhibit intolerance against views they don't share. The result is implicit moderation.

simianparrot 7y ago
The platform is still neutral, in your example, even if the community causes self-censorship or self-exclusion to "outsiders" by its dominance. The platform is the carrier, not the message.
thu2111 7y ago
There's no such thing as implicit moderation. There might be people getting sick of it and leaving, but that's not the same thing as moderation.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

There's obviously no such thing as neutrality, and thus there cannot be a neutral platform. (Similarly, there's no such thing as culturally-neutral technology.)

darawk 7y ago
Ok, explain to me in what way an unmoderated forum is non-neutral.
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Typically, a forum has a listing of posts. What function enumerates the listing? If we sort by newest, then those who can post most frequently will dominate. If we sort by most comments, we'll get emotionbait; by deepest comment trees, most nuanced and controversial topics. Sorting by oldest prioritizes those who most frequently venture out to find new forums, which leads to domination by a network of well-connected people who discover new forums by systematically maintaining information asymmetry over forum creators. IRL example: Stock exchanges. Listings are sorted by freshness and causality, so being close to the exchange ends up dominating almost all other factors. More generally, this is the Reputation Problem: How can we possibly grant any sort of social credit to anonymous passerby without creating side incentives which will be immediately and horribly abused?
  - darawk 7y ago
    > If we sort by newest, then those who can post most frequently will dominate. If we sort by most comments, we'll get emotionbait; by deepest comment trees, most nuanced and controversial topics. Sorting by oldest prioritizes those who most frequently venture out to find new forums, which leads to domination by a network of well-connected people who discover new forums by systematically maintaining information asymmetry over forum creators. What if you allow people to choose their own preferred sort, and don't have a default (i.e. force them to explicitly choose)? > IRL example: Stock exchanges. Listings are sorted by freshness and causality, so being close to the exchange ends up dominating almost all other factors. I think I get what you're trying to say here, and I don't want to nitpick too much, but I don't think this is true. At least, if i'm understanding you correctly. The limit orderbook is a priority queue, sorted only partially by freshness, but mostly by proximity to the midpoint of the bid-ask spread. Being close to the exchange is important for certain high frequency strategies, but definitely not all of them. > More generally, this is the Reputation Problem: How can we possibly grant any sort of social credit to anonymous passerby without creating side incentives which will be immediately and horribly abused? Ya, it's a tricky problem. But I think it's a little early to call it an unsolvable problem. There are ways you can try to attack it, like proof of work or web of trust type systems. But yes, reputation is hard.