4 ms·

I think the way scale comes in to play for the first two points comes down to who is being moderated / doing the moderation. At scale, the users being moderated

by tqi 6y ago

I think the way scale comes in to play for the first two points comes down to who is being moderated / doing the moderation. At scale, the users being moderated are more capable of becoming a politically or economically effective coalition. And at scale, the consistency of judgement becomes harder to maintain. Now you have mistakes not just because judgement was incorrectly applied, but also because the judgement itself was incorrectly implemented.

dang 6y ago
I agree with you that, at scale, issues with moderation can become politically influential, and that's a huge difference from moderation at smaller scales. Lucky for us, says parochial me. Consistency is probably a red herring. Moderation will never be perceived as consistent, at any scale. Different mods will always make different calls, and even the same mod will make different-seeming calls because humans are complicated.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Consistency being a red herring is behind the discussions over "instant" replay vs ref call in sports. If players can trust a ref to be not perfect, but fair (that is, screwing up equally for both teams), the game will flow much more than if it is continually stopped so everyone can argue and check the replay.
  - dang 6y ago
    I think the analogy between mods and refs is a good one (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20refs&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). I don't follow sports that do instant replays but I'd expect that people don't agree about them anyway. The best way to signal fairness is to find a thread like a butterfly option where you can scold one of each side. Readers are alert to that and they love it. Everyone feels reassured that things are fair. That would be analogous to a ref giving a penalty to each side. It's not always possible, of course, and when the scolding is one-sided people will automatically assume that you secretly favor the other team.

by tqi 6y ago

dang 6y ago

I agree with you that, at scale, issues with moderation can become politically influential, and that's a huge difference from moderation at smaller scales. Lucky for us, says parochial me. Consistency is probably a red herring. Moderation will never be perceived as consistent, at any scale. Different mods will always make different calls, and even the same mod will make different-seeming calls because humans are complicated.

082349872349872 6y ago
Consistency being a red herring is behind the discussions over "instant" replay vs ref call in sports. If players can trust a ref to be not perfect, but fair (that is, screwing up equally for both teams), the game will flow much more than if it is continually stopped so everyone can argue and check the replay.
- dang 6y ago
  I think the analogy between mods and refs is a good one (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20refs&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). I don't follow sports that do instant replays but I'd expect that people don't agree about them anyway. The best way to signal fairness is to find a thread like a butterfly option where you can scold one of each side. Readers are alert to that and they love it. Everyone feels reassured that things are fair. That would be analogous to a ref giving a penalty to each side. It's not always possible, of course, and when the scolding is one-sided people will automatically assume that you secretly favor the other team.