5 ms·

Moderation is great. Making changes that reduce the need for moderation are even better. If you were to ask yourself: how much more could we be doing with a b

Moderation is great. Making changes that reduce the need for moderation are even better. If you were to ask yourself: how much more could we be doing with a big community of people who are mostly highly educated and technical? Is forums in the form we've had them since 1990 the optimal medium for a community? I don't think anyone would say yes and yet I don't see any effort on behalf of the people who run this place to experiment and do anything remotely interesting. The moderators on here do an admirable job but it ultimately feels to me like they're cops who are being asked to arrest people for smoking a joint. The solution to better policing is less policing, more community via better laws, the solution to better moderation is less moderation, more community, via better use of technology. For a place that talks about new, this place feels exactly like what I had 20+ years ago elsewhere.

dang 6y ago
If you have concrete suggestions about how to reduce the need for moderation, I'd love to hear them.
- alexashka 6y ago
  Yes, poll people who invest in YC start-ups if they'd be willing to invest in start-ups that improve upon HackerNews forums. That should generate a few million. Then hire somebody with a proven track record to oversee proposals for additions to existing HackerNews. In other words, get money, then crowdsource ideas, then pay people to implement ideas with most votes, then provide beta tests, then provide HackerNews add-ons for a small fee that would cover the expenses. Run it as a non-profit. --- Has this been tried before? Is this the first time you hear of such a proposal? --- I'll throw in two more ideas - make any action taken by a moderator public, with blanked out content that is flagrantly illegal (links to child pornography) Make it possible to dispute any moderator action for a fee, in other words move from a dictatorship to a democracy. HackerNews need not be a dictatorship where what moderators think is good, is what's going to be enforced upon the rest. There can be thousands of HackerNews that are filtered, sorted and moderated differently, based on people's preferences. This would be trivially made possible by asking people who'd be interested in such a service, to pay a small monthly fee. --- Trivial change - please make it possible to block specific users based on name/how long they've been registered on site for X-number of days. For example if I see someone routinely making comments I am not interested in, who does it benefit for me to continue reading their input? It only causes tension, it's like having to live with people you are fundamentally opposed to with no recourse other than leaving (no longer reading the comments section) I predict this feature alone would decrease tensions among regular readers significantly, making your job easier.
  - dang 6y ago
    That's not a concrete suggestion, but rather a meta-strategy for getting those. Alas, I think it would run up against hard economics super quickly. Forums like HN aren't big businesses, and efforts to make them into big businesses exert pressures under which they turn into something else. This is probably the most important thing for understanding HN, actually: it ended up in a sweet spot where it makes sense for YC to fund it without needing to pressure it. Previous thoughts about that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=yc%20business%20interests%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Re "please make it possible to block specific users" - this has been on the list for a long time but I have a feeling that it may go against the community in the long run. The more I get to know HN, the more I realize how important the non-siloed property is—i.e. everyone's in one big room together and can't self-select to get away from each other [1]. Of course, that makes HN a place where we all run up against things that are not only unpleasant, but actually shocking [2]. But I think that learning collectively to deal with that—learning to tolerate what that does to our nervous systems—is core work we have to do together, to keep this place vital. Each internet community begins with different initial conditions, and if it goes on for long enough, those initial conditions get a chance to unfold into something unique. Trying to change the initial conditions after the fact feels to me like a bad idea. It's better to find ways to live with them, and maybe to steer their consequences, like sweepers in curling. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=siloed%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      Relatedly (since we've got you here), rather than blocking bad users it would be nice to be able to tag specific users in a way that shows up on the comment feed. For example, there are a few users whose comments consistently impress me with their depth, and whose commentary in a thread often flags a deeper conversation on a topic. It might just be because I have a terrible memory for usernames, but it would be nice to be able to immediately see "Founder/CEO of Initech" or "Expert Bananacurist" next to the name.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Part of the need for moderation stems from people holding differing opinions on culture war topics. Of course, this is true on any site. What bothers me about HN is that when it comes to such topics, the quality of discourse and thinking degrades so significantly from what one finds on regular topics. From my perspective, if the URL and layout/theme changed, from reading some example threads (culture war topics vs not), I'd never guess both kinds are taking place on the same site. Of course, "people will be people", but the growing amount of polarization and vitriol online is starting to get rather concerning. I think it's fair to say that the quality of the userbase here is significantly higher than most other social media platforms, so I would be very interested in seeing if some reasonable tweaks could be experimented with to see if perhaps some approach could be found to narrow the quality gap between normal topics and culture war topics here on HN. The main idea I've had is an experimental mode that HN could be run in for topics of this kind, just a few individual changes I can think of for such a mode: - for downvoting, make providing a reason mandatory (pick from a list of 5 or so items) - allow voting (up down) on more finer grained attributes (5 or so) - what those might be would require some thought, but it may be an interesting and non-harmful way to increase thoughfulness - additional guidelines that strongly discourage: --- stereotyping members of groups --- mind reading --- crystal ball gazing (using predictions of the future as rhetorical evidence in a disagreement) --- speaking untruthfully (stating speculations as facts, and refusing to provide evidence when asked) These behaviors are certainly frowned on if they're done "against the grain" around here, it might be a fun challenge for the majority to see what it's like to have to bite their tongues now and then. Or maybe if we were really lucky, perhaps more people would realize that a lot of the things they think are true, are often nothing more than memes, opinions/intuitions, or half-true media narratives. Of course politics is one of the most contentious topics - always has been, always will be. The dumpster fires that are modern day Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit seem beyond rescue at this point, and mainstream journalism with its innuendo and opinion-based narratives isn't far behind. And unsurprisingly, I think it's rather fair to say that even HN has shown noteworthy decline in this regard. A common theme one often hears in these conversations is the sacredness of democracy, and how we must protect it. But if one is to mention in these threads the formerly non-controversial notion that what is actually True may have some sacredness to it as well, people seem to suddenly lose interest in the discussion. Perhaps with some reasonable experimentation and cooperation, HN could become a place where people could once again discuss such topics with reason, logic, and truth. And if we could manage such a feat, perhaps we could also find a way to document these learnings and spread them into other social networks, perhaps lowering the amount of animosity in the world a bit in the process, altering the course of history to some degree. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and their ilk have little to gain (and much to lose) from experimenting with ways for people to get along better, so if they aren't going to do it, how are we ever going to get this country/world out of this downward spiral of anger? If no one is willing to do anything, then where is this road going to lead us in the end?

dang 6y ago

If you have concrete suggestions about how to reduce the need for moderation, I'd love to hear them.

alexashka 6y ago
Yes, poll people who invest in YC start-ups if they'd be willing to invest in start-ups that improve upon HackerNews forums. That should generate a few million. Then hire somebody with a proven track record to oversee proposals for additions to existing HackerNews. In other words, get money, then crowdsource ideas, then pay people to implement ideas with most votes, then provide beta tests, then provide HackerNews add-ons for a small fee that would cover the expenses. Run it as a non-profit. --- Has this been tried before? Is this the first time you hear of such a proposal? --- I'll throw in two more ideas - make any action taken by a moderator public, with blanked out content that is flagrantly illegal (links to child pornography) Make it possible to dispute any moderator action for a fee, in other words move from a dictatorship to a democracy. HackerNews need not be a dictatorship where what moderators think is good, is what's going to be enforced upon the rest. There can be thousands of HackerNews that are filtered, sorted and moderated differently, based on people's preferences. This would be trivially made possible by asking people who'd be interested in such a service, to pay a small monthly fee. --- Trivial change - please make it possible to block specific users based on name/how long they've been registered on site for X-number of days. For example if I see someone routinely making comments I am not interested in, who does it benefit for me to continue reading their input? It only causes tension, it's like having to live with people you are fundamentally opposed to with no recourse other than leaving (no longer reading the comments section) I predict this feature alone would decrease tensions among regular readers significantly, making your job easier.
- dang 6y ago
  That's not a concrete suggestion, but rather a meta-strategy for getting those. Alas, I think it would run up against hard economics super quickly. Forums like HN aren't big businesses, and efforts to make them into big businesses exert pressures under which they turn into something else. This is probably the most important thing for understanding HN, actually: it ended up in a sweet spot where it makes sense for YC to fund it without needing to pressure it. Previous thoughts about that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=yc%20business%20interests%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Re "please make it possible to block specific users" - this has been on the list for a long time but I have a feeling that it may go against the community in the long run. The more I get to know HN, the more I realize how important the non-siloed property is—i.e. everyone's in one big room together and can't self-select to get away from each other [1]. Of course, that makes HN a place where we all run up against things that are not only unpleasant, but actually shocking [2]. But I think that learning collectively to deal with that—learning to tolerate what that does to our nervous systems—is core work we have to do together, to keep this place vital. Each internet community begins with different initial conditions, and if it goes on for long enough, those initial conditions get a chance to unfold into something unique. Trying to change the initial conditions after the fact feels to me like a bad idea. It's better to find ways to live with them, and maybe to steer their consequences, like sweepers in curling. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=siloed%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Relatedly (since we've got you here), rather than blocking bad users it would be nice to be able to tag specific users in a way that shows up on the comment feed. For example, there are a few users whose comments consistently impress me with their depth, and whose commentary in a thread often flags a deeper conversation on a topic. It might just be because I have a terrible memory for usernames, but it would be nice to be able to immediately see "Founder/CEO of Initech" or "Expert Bananacurist" next to the name.
mistermann 6y ago
Part of the need for moderation stems from people holding differing opinions on culture war topics. Of course, this is true on any site. What bothers me about HN is that when it comes to such topics, the quality of discourse and thinking degrades so significantly from what one finds on regular topics. From my perspective, if the URL and layout/theme changed, from reading some example threads (culture war topics vs not), I'd never guess both kinds are taking place on the same site. Of course, "people will be people", but the growing amount of polarization and vitriol online is starting to get rather concerning. I think it's fair to say that the quality of the userbase here is significantly higher than most other social media platforms, so I would be very interested in seeing if some reasonable tweaks could be experimented with to see if perhaps some approach could be found to narrow the quality gap between normal topics and culture war topics here on HN. The main idea I've had is an experimental mode that HN could be run in for topics of this kind, just a few individual changes I can think of for such a mode: - for downvoting, make providing a reason mandatory (pick from a list of 5 or so items) - allow voting (up down) on more finer grained attributes (5 or so) - what those might be would require some thought, but it may be an interesting and non-harmful way to increase thoughfulness - additional guidelines that strongly discourage: --- stereotyping members of groups --- mind reading --- crystal ball gazing (using predictions of the future as rhetorical evidence in a disagreement) --- speaking untruthfully (stating speculations as facts, and refusing to provide evidence when asked) These behaviors are certainly frowned on if they're done "against the grain" around here, it might be a fun challenge for the majority to see what it's like to have to bite their tongues now and then. Or maybe if we were really lucky, perhaps more people would realize that a lot of the things they think are true, are often nothing more than memes, opinions/intuitions, or half-true media narratives. Of course politics is one of the most contentious topics - always has been, always will be. The dumpster fires that are modern day Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit seem beyond rescue at this point, and mainstream journalism with its innuendo and opinion-based narratives isn't far behind. And unsurprisingly, I think it's rather fair to say that even HN has shown noteworthy decline in this regard. A common theme one often hears in these conversations is the sacredness of democracy, and how we must protect it. But if one is to mention in these threads the formerly non-controversial notion that what is actually True may have some sacredness to it as well, people seem to suddenly lose interest in the discussion. Perhaps with some reasonable experimentation and cooperation, HN could become a place where people could once again discuss such topics with reason, logic, and truth. And if we could manage such a feat, perhaps we could also find a way to document these learnings and spread them into other social networks, perhaps lowering the amount of animosity in the world a bit in the process, altering the course of history to some degree. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and their ilk have little to gain (and much to lose) from experimenting with ways for people to get along better, so if they aren't going to do it, how are we ever going to get this country/world out of this downward spiral of anger? If no one is willing to do anything, then where is this road going to lead us in the end?