4 ms·

> the more you remove stuff you don't like, the more accountable you should be for whatever stuff you continue to host It seems to me that this just creates a

> the more you remove stuff you don't like, the more accountable you should be for whatever stuff you continue to host It seems to me that this just creates a perverse incentive to never moderate anything. How would that be an improvement? At a minimum, you’d end up with a space overrun by spammers.

dx87 6y ago
The platform can provide tools that allows users to moderate what they want. RES on reddit is good at that, you can make it so you don't see posts from certain users, filter posts and links, etc.
- csnover 6y ago
  What happens if the users are the ones that moderate to include only the libellous content, per the GP’s example? Is the provider then responsible for that in this world where more moderation = more liability? Do the volunteer moderators become the liable parties instead? What if a user is also an employee of the company, does that make the company liable again? While I like the idea of self-policing communities, it doesn’t always work so well in reality (Slashdot’s comment voting system was great at burying bad content during the site’s heyday—though it never eliminated it—now it works pretty poorly because most of the audience has shifted away. Reddit’s subreddit moderation system can be great, except for the racism[0].) This seems to me like a poorly thought through solution and I’m not really sure what the goal is. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/reddit-racism-open-letter/612958/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/reddi...
  - josephh 6y ago
    GP’s comment isn’t referring to the tools given to volunteer moderators. They are referring (and strictly so) to the tools that end-users can use to moderate what they themselves want to see.
    - csnover 6y ago
      Oh, I see. My mistake. It makes no sense to me that a user choosing to censor content would solve any institutional problem so it didn’t even cross my mind that someone would bring it up. Thanks for the clarification!
leetcrew 6y ago
maybe I didn't express this clearly, but the scale of the platform (in users, and possibly also revenue) should be taken into account. a forum the size of HN with only a couple moderators should have most or all of the current safe harbor protections. but if a platform the size of facebook wants to pick and choose what kind of content is allowed, it should face some liability for whatever it allows to stay up. maybe not the same as if I post something libelous on my own personal website, but some fraction of that, proportional to the degree of moderation. the point is not to discourage moderation entirely, but to make it a bit more costly/risky so that the influence of the biggest players is checked somewhat.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  It sets up a two-tired internet: one tier for sites with third party content, with rules and compliance and failure modes and enforcement; and one tier for sites which don’t allow third party content. It seems designed to setup a regime or structure or legal framework to force platforms to allow third party content which would otherwise violate the platforms’ terms of service or other guidelines, or force a legal standoff with the government. It removes control of the site from site operators. This would result it a system ripe for selective enforcement. Not a fan. Not a fan of how sites currently selectively enforce their terms of service either, whether directly through employees or hired contractors, or indirectly via community moderators. Selective enforcement is the common thread running through this topic on all its sides: the questionable or controversial content and its creators; the platforms and hosts; and the government and its representatives, eager to also have a seat at the selective enforcement table.

dx87 6y ago

The platform can provide tools that allows users to moderate what they want. RES on reddit is good at that, you can make it so you don't see posts from certain users, filter posts and links, etc.

csnover 6y ago
What happens if the users are the ones that moderate to include only the libellous content, per the GP’s example? Is the provider then responsible for that in this world where more moderation = more liability? Do the volunteer moderators become the liable parties instead? What if a user is also an employee of the company, does that make the company liable again? While I like the idea of self-policing communities, it doesn’t always work so well in reality (Slashdot’s comment voting system was great at burying bad content during the site’s heyday—though it never eliminated it—now it works pretty poorly because most of the audience has shifted away. Reddit’s subreddit moderation system can be great, except for the racism[0].) This seems to me like a poorly thought through solution and I’m not really sure what the goal is. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/reddit-racism-open-letter/612958/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/reddi...
- josephh 6y ago
  GP’s comment isn’t referring to the tools given to volunteer moderators. They are referring (and strictly so) to the tools that end-users can use to moderate what they themselves want to see.
  - csnover 6y ago
    Oh, I see. My mistake. It makes no sense to me that a user choosing to censor content would solve any institutional problem so it didn’t even cross my mind that someone would bring it up. Thanks for the clarification!

leetcrew 6y ago

maybe I didn't express this clearly, but the scale of the platform (in users, and possibly also revenue) should be taken into account. a forum the size of HN with only a couple moderators should have most or all of the current safe harbor protections. but if a platform the size of facebook wants to pick and choose what kind of content is allowed, it should face some liability for whatever it allows to stay up. maybe not the same as if I post something libelous on my own personal website, but some fraction of that, proportional to the degree of moderation. the point is not to discourage moderation entirely, but to make it a bit more costly/risky so that the influence of the biggest players is checked somewhat.

aspenmayer 6y ago
It sets up a two-tired internet: one tier for sites with third party content, with rules and compliance and failure modes and enforcement; and one tier for sites which don’t allow third party content. It seems designed to setup a regime or structure or legal framework to force platforms to allow third party content which would otherwise violate the platforms’ terms of service or other guidelines, or force a legal standoff with the government. It removes control of the site from site operators. This would result it a system ripe for selective enforcement. Not a fan. Not a fan of how sites currently selectively enforce their terms of service either, whether directly through employees or hired contractors, or indirectly via community moderators. Selective enforcement is the common thread running through this topic on all its sides: the questionable or controversial content and its creators; the platforms and hosts; and the government and its representatives, eager to also have a seat at the selective enforcement table.