3 ms·
Should HN not define their own content moderation rules? My view is that governments should have some general moderation rules, no death threats, no CP, ect. Si
by confidantlake 6y ago
Should HN not define their own content moderation rules? My view is that governments should have some general moderation rules, no death threats, no CP, ect. Sites should be able to have stricter moderation rules, no claiming that Obama was born in Kenya.
I personally prefer smaller communities like forums such as this one, slack groups, or other forums, compared to Facebook or twitter.
I am not sure how a W3C standard for tagging a URI comment would work. Aren't a lot of URIs not even opinion/fact based things? Like if my uri is a product on Amazon or a piece of sheet music there wouldn't be any rebuttals right? But idk seems interesting, would like to see if it worked.
- lifeisstillgood 6y agoI think there needs to be baseline levels yes - Inwoukd argue that one of these things is that if a platform enables public publishing (still to be defined!) it must have some rebuttal mechanism, and implement some level of censorship (at the criminal level). This means for example I cannot post (in the UK) child porm or threats or hate speech. Dang would have to delete it. But additionally if i post for example that Democrats stole votes from Kent County, HN should have a means for you to flag it, and link that flag to some useful site about how correlations actually work. It would change the nature of HN slightly yes, but it could be done with little impact - I think. But having some floor level of debate seems like a social necessity. PS The Indian issue with WhatsApp a couple of years back makes defining "publish" quite difficult if you can manage to create murderous mobs with opt in messaging systems....