6 ms·

Not impossible at all. Divide the subject matter into thousands of specialist areas, and let each area be moderated by it's own community moderators/editors. I

Not impossible at all. Divide the subject matter into thousands of specialist areas, and let each area be moderated by it's own community moderators/editors. It only becomes a problem when you try and publish every comment on every subject through a single organisation.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Doesn't that reinforce extremes and encourage enclaves: which is why Reddit end up closing whole communities (the good and bad in those communities). You're just putting off moderation of extreme content that doesn't confirm to a community consensus at all by hiding it in a corner and letting it grow without control.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  Are the readers of 'Nature' or 'The Economist' extreme? Quality curation and editorial control are possible at those levels. I can write a letter, or indeed an article or paper for either, but it only gets accepted if it is good enough.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > I can write a letter, or indeed an article or paper for either, but it only gets accepted if it is good enough. Sure. With a maximum bandwidth of what, dozens a month?
    - jimnotgym 6y ago
      Sounds like a feature
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > Doesn't that reinforce extremes and encourage enclaves: which is why Reddit end up closing whole communities (the good and bad in those communities). Nope. It works well on discord. I can think of few reasons why: 1. The reliance on advertising model pushes them to retain users on their platform for longer and increase engagement in unnatural ways. You can see with how they push you to use the app or throw big subs everywhere. 2. The front-page has limited slots and there is no way to divide the community into smaller parts in itself. On discord, you can do this with channels and roles. 3. There is no voting system and realtime communication is more human like. You can get feedback naturally which you won't on reddit.
dredmorbius 6y ago
This gives you, as examples, Reddit, fandoms, academic niches, the Toxoplasma of Rage (SSC), cliques, cults, and the like. Not all horrible, but of decidedly variable, and often overtly bad, outcomes. Small groups self-selecting rapidly give rise to highly idiosyncratic community behaviours (groupthink, cults, circle-jerks, mutual admiration societies). Large groups tend to vastly overemphasize first impressions and surface appeal, not long-term quality, depth, or complexity. See Dwight MacDonald writing on mass culture in the 1950s. Specialist fields have both legitimate barriers to entry (talent and expertise) and self-imposed ones (in-group, grants funders). Any remunerated content must appeal to the compensation mechanism, dynamics, or authority (this article was linked from Techdirt's announcement it had been banned by Google Adsense, currently on HN). Who pays the piper calls the tune. Focusing on who moderates misses other factors such as how (mechanisms) and criteria (what is elevated / dropped). Those are also worth considering. Most moderation tools are very blunt instruments: show or not. I've been quite frustrated with options on nu. By considering other factors -- prominence or obscurity, degree of exposure, how highly-rated though deep comments are presented, say, "virality", placement and frequency of countering or corrective messages, strength or lack of central control, frequency of posting or participation, and contributer reputation, just to name a few, there are numerous other controls which might be adjusted. Randomness is also underapreciated. Most of all is what the moderation strives for: quality, popularity, engagement, conversions, advertising impact, artistic novelty, legal prohibitions or mandates, political objectives, humour, ... Few discussions of moderation even acknowledge this. (This submission itself went through HN's 2nd chance queue.) HN operates largely on human-induced nudges, some firmer than others. It's not elegent, and may not scale much beyond present activity. But it's been remarkably effective and consistent for going on two decades.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > This submission itself went through HN's 2nd chance queue. Any reason why this was killed twice? I vouched again.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    No idea, but thanks.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Doesn't that reinforce extremes and encourage enclaves: which is why Reddit end up closing whole communities (the good and bad in those communities). You're just putting off moderation of extreme content that doesn't confirm to a community consensus at all by hiding it in a corner and letting it grow without control.

jimnotgym 6y ago
Are the readers of 'Nature' or 'The Economist' extreme? Quality curation and editorial control are possible at those levels. I can write a letter, or indeed an article or paper for either, but it only gets accepted if it is good enough.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > I can write a letter, or indeed an article or paper for either, but it only gets accepted if it is good enough. Sure. With a maximum bandwidth of what, dozens a month?
  - jimnotgym 6y ago
    Sounds like a feature
searchableguy 6y ago
> Doesn't that reinforce extremes and encourage enclaves: which is why Reddit end up closing whole communities (the good and bad in those communities). Nope. It works well on discord. I can think of few reasons why: 1. The reliance on advertising model pushes them to retain users on their platform for longer and increase engagement in unnatural ways. You can see with how they push you to use the app or throw big subs everywhere. 2. The front-page has limited slots and there is no way to divide the community into smaller parts in itself. On discord, you can do this with channels and roles. 3. There is no voting system and realtime communication is more human like. You can get feedback naturally which you won't on reddit.

dredmorbius 6y ago

This gives you, as examples, Reddit, fandoms, academic niches, the Toxoplasma of Rage (SSC), cliques, cults, and the like. Not all horrible, but of decidedly variable, and often overtly bad, outcomes. Small groups self-selecting rapidly give rise to highly idiosyncratic community behaviours (groupthink, cults, circle-jerks, mutual admiration societies). Large groups tend to vastly overemphasize first impressions and surface appeal, not long-term quality, depth, or complexity. See Dwight MacDonald writing on mass culture in the 1950s. Specialist fields have both legitimate barriers to entry (talent and expertise) and self-imposed ones (in-group, grants funders). Any remunerated content must appeal to the compensation mechanism, dynamics, or authority (this article was linked from Techdirt's announcement it had been banned by Google Adsense, currently on HN). Who pays the piper calls the tune. Focusing on who moderates misses other factors such as how (mechanisms) and criteria (what is elevated / dropped). Those are also worth considering. Most moderation tools are very blunt instruments: show or not. I've been quite frustrated with options on nu. By considering other factors -- prominence or obscurity, degree of exposure, how highly-rated though deep comments are presented, say, "virality", placement and frequency of countering or corrective messages, strength or lack of central control, frequency of posting or participation, and contributer reputation, just to name a few, there are numerous other controls which might be adjusted. Randomness is also underapreciated. Most of all is what the moderation strives for: quality, popularity, engagement, conversions, advertising impact, artistic novelty, legal prohibitions or mandates, political objectives, humour, ... Few discussions of moderation even acknowledge this. (This submission itself went through HN's 2nd chance queue.) HN operates largely on human-induced nudges, some firmer than others. It's not elegent, and may not scale much beyond present activity. But it's been remarkably effective and consistent for going on two decades.

searchableguy 6y ago
> This submission itself went through HN's 2nd chance queue. Any reason why this was killed twice? I vouched again.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  No idea, but thanks.