3 ms·

> Option 1 effectively forces anyone who doesn't want to live on 8Chan off of the Internet. If you have adequate filters, you don't need to see anything that y

> Option 1 effectively forces anyone who doesn't want to live on 8Chan off of the Internet. If you have adequate filters, you don't need to see anything that you don't like. I do agree on the antitrust point.

schoen 7y ago
Has anybody found a good model for scaling display filtering that respects users' priorities and sensibilities, rather than platform owners' and governments'? One thing I keep hearing is that doing moderation that gives users an experience they like is a ton of work, is very experience, and can be hard on the moderators' mental health if they do it a lot and the user base is large enough. (For example, some of the moderators might be watching videos of real people dying or getting raped all day long.) In Mastodon and so on there are instance administrators, typically volunteers, but they don't scale well and probably don't deal well with large variations in people's beliefs, culture, and interests, nor with overlapping group memberships. Meanwhile, major platforms are spending millions of dollars paying people to do moderation as a full-time job, in a heavy-handed, error-prone, arbitrary and centralized way where the only options are sometimes "delete this for everyone", "ban the user", or "allow this for everyone". (The "sophisticated" systems may also allow things like "hide this behind a sensitive content button", "hide this from users who don't claim to be over 18", and "ban this in certain countries".) More sophisticated, nuanced, and pro-speech filtering work that doesn't aim to uphold a single worldwide standard seems like it will be even more expensive; who will do it and how will we incentivize it?
- mirimir 7y ago
  Huh, I was going to reply here, but then I replied there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22380069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22380069 Here seemed too hard, I guess. But ... > More sophisticated, nuanced, and pro-speech filtering work that doesn't aim to uphold a single worldwide standard seems like it will be even more expensive; who will do it and how will we incentivize it? That's certainly what I'd want. The standard federated model of shared filtering rules being applied at the node level is way too prone to generating filter bubbles. Also, people who are genuinely open-minded and interested in free discussion would never put up with it, and they're the most fun to be around. That's why I've never gotten into Mastodon. I'd want filtering rules that participants applied locally. The model used by ad-blocking browser extensions, Pi-hole and such would arguably work. But of course, sets of rules would be far more complex, and it'd be best to hide them under a simple user interface. Let's say that someone open-sourced the sort of moderation repo that major platforms are developing. With adjustable automated pre-filtering, and human tweaking. So then any participant could run that, and publish their rules. Other participants, maybe mega nodes who got paid for their efforts, would consolidate all those rules into coherent sets, and then publish those. There'd be multiple such services, and they'd compete on filter type and quality. > For example, some of the moderators might be watching videos of real people dying or getting raped all day long. That is a problem. I know that personally. For many years, I relied on hearsay about Freenet, because I was way too paranoid to actually run it locally. But eventually, I developed the skills to run it on a remote server, with adequate anonymity. So I did. I won't go into detail. But let's just say that I can not imagine how any decent person could moderate some of that stuff without mental damage. So as distasteful as it might be, perhaps the system could incorporate filter rules from people who enjoy that stuff. They'd be motivated to adequately anonymize their contributions, of course. And if they succeeded, there'd be no leverage for anyone to be forced to identify them. And if they were careless, that would be great. Once their rules had been characterized, however, they'd be reversed before integration with everyone else's. And the same methodology could be used for all other widely distasteful categories of content.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Belated edit: It was thoughtless to say this: > And if they were careless, that would be great. It's difficult to say anything general, given how widely standards vary. I was originally going to say that the system would guarantee anonymity. And that's really the only workable option, because otherwise you've built in a vulnerability.
UncleMeat 7y ago
How do I filter thousands of people calling me slurs on twitter because I made a YouTube video supporting feminism?
- mirimir 7y ago
  You can't. Any more than you can prevent people from insulting you in meatspace. What you can do is ignore them, and all of the child commentary.

schoen 7y ago

Has anybody found a good model for scaling display filtering that respects users' priorities and sensibilities, rather than platform owners' and governments'? One thing I keep hearing is that doing moderation that gives users an experience they like is a ton of work, is very experience, and can be hard on the moderators' mental health if they do it a lot and the user base is large enough. (For example, some of the moderators might be watching videos of real people dying or getting raped all day long.) In Mastodon and so on there are instance administrators, typically volunteers, but they don't scale well and probably don't deal well with large variations in people's beliefs, culture, and interests, nor with overlapping group memberships. Meanwhile, major platforms are spending millions of dollars paying people to do moderation as a full-time job, in a heavy-handed, error-prone, arbitrary and centralized way where the only options are sometimes "delete this for everyone", "ban the user", or "allow this for everyone". (The "sophisticated" systems may also allow things like "hide this behind a sensitive content button", "hide this from users who don't claim to be over 18", and "ban this in certain countries".) More sophisticated, nuanced, and pro-speech filtering work that doesn't aim to uphold a single worldwide standard seems like it will be even more expensive; who will do it and how will we incentivize it?

mirimir 7y ago
Huh, I was going to reply here, but then I replied there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22380069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22380069 Here seemed too hard, I guess. But ... > More sophisticated, nuanced, and pro-speech filtering work that doesn't aim to uphold a single worldwide standard seems like it will be even more expensive; who will do it and how will we incentivize it? That's certainly what I'd want. The standard federated model of shared filtering rules being applied at the node level is way too prone to generating filter bubbles. Also, people who are genuinely open-minded and interested in free discussion would never put up with it, and they're the most fun to be around. That's why I've never gotten into Mastodon. I'd want filtering rules that participants applied locally. The model used by ad-blocking browser extensions, Pi-hole and such would arguably work. But of course, sets of rules would be far more complex, and it'd be best to hide them under a simple user interface. Let's say that someone open-sourced the sort of moderation repo that major platforms are developing. With adjustable automated pre-filtering, and human tweaking. So then any participant could run that, and publish their rules. Other participants, maybe mega nodes who got paid for their efforts, would consolidate all those rules into coherent sets, and then publish those. There'd be multiple such services, and they'd compete on filter type and quality. > For example, some of the moderators might be watching videos of real people dying or getting raped all day long. That is a problem. I know that personally. For many years, I relied on hearsay about Freenet, because I was way too paranoid to actually run it locally. But eventually, I developed the skills to run it on a remote server, with adequate anonymity. So I did. I won't go into detail. But let's just say that I can not imagine how any decent person could moderate some of that stuff without mental damage. So as distasteful as it might be, perhaps the system could incorporate filter rules from people who enjoy that stuff. They'd be motivated to adequately anonymize their contributions, of course. And if they succeeded, there'd be no leverage for anyone to be forced to identify them. And if they were careless, that would be great. Once their rules had been characterized, however, they'd be reversed before integration with everyone else's. And the same methodology could be used for all other widely distasteful categories of content.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Belated edit: It was thoughtless to say this: > And if they were careless, that would be great. It's difficult to say anything general, given how widely standards vary. I was originally going to say that the system would guarantee anonymity. And that's really the only workable option, because otherwise you've built in a vulnerability.

UncleMeat 7y ago

How do I filter thousands of people calling me slurs on twitter because I made a YouTube video supporting feminism?

mirimir 7y ago
You can't. Any more than you can prevent people from insulting you in meatspace. What you can do is ignore them, and all of the child commentary.