6 ms·
Oh I'll definitely agree I'm oversimplifying it, and there's room for improvement. But I think the core issue remains: if they are allowed to control discourse
by Notorious_BLT 7y ago
Oh I'll definitely agree I'm oversimplifying it, and there's room for improvement. But I think the core issue remains: if they are allowed to control discourse by choosing who can speak and who cannot, then they must be held responsible for who they allow to speak, and they need to be transparent about it.
And to your last point: as a decently frequent user of 4chan, that's pretty much what I like about it, though there absolutely IS moderation on most boards. People's minds go to /b/ and /pol/ when they think of 4chan, but there are several niche hobby communities on other boards which thrive in a (relatively) low-moderation, low-interferance. setting.
- kick 7y agoRelatively low-moderation? Half of the boards ban for political discussion in its entirety.
- root_axis 7y ago> if they are allowed to control discourse by choosing who can speak and who cannot, then they must be held responsible for who they allow to speak, and they need to be transparent about it. Wouldn't this idea in essence eliminate the possibility of moderation of any kind? In order to do any moderation, every post by every user would have to be manually reviewed. This obviously doesn't scale, so in effect the law would eliminate the ability for website owners to moderate content on their own site. Also, what happens to sites like reddit and github where moderation is a feature offered by the product? How would people be able to find a moderated community if that's what they wanted? The idea seems totally unworkable.
- akersten 7y agoHey root_axis, I see you pop up pretty frequently on threads like this where people really don't understand the consequences of forcing companies to host speech and removing their legal protections if they decide to moderate. Personally I've seen the same dialog hash out so many times it's become exhausting to even reply to them. I just want to thank you for continuing to fight for what's right.
- root_axis 7y agohaha, probably a sign I am spending too much time on HN, but it does surprise me to see this suggestion pop up so often, especially on this site which happens to be a quintessential example of moderation as part of the production. Imagine what dang's workload would be like if he had to hand review every one of these comments!
- goatinaboat 7y agoThis obviously doesn't scale That’s not true though. What you mean is that the economics of moderation are not convenient to achieving your desired outcome. YouTube for example could easily afford to review uploaded content before publishing it. They just wouldn’t make as much profit as they would like to.
- root_axis 7y agoMore than 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, the economics of comprehensive manual review are not "inconvenient" they are wholly implausible.
- goatinaboat 7y agoYou’ve got it backwards. That much gets uploaded because it’s unmoderated. The vast majority of it is junk that everyone knows would never pass any sort of quality filter, so no one would bother to upload it.
- root_axis 7y agoThat makes no sense. YouTube has no policy against "junk" videos, there is no reason why individual users would change their upload habits except for a tiny minority that knowingly upload violating videos.
- goatinaboat 7y agoNo, there is that instant dopamine hit of uploading a video and seeing the likes in real time. Whereas if it was, upload a video and 6 months later it might be approved, people would be more diligent about it. This is very obvious human nature.