4 ms·

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of w

I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook/twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we're really ill-equipped to understand just how far it goes. If there's a huge silent population of kind reasonable people, people that don't spout off but are allowed to have some control of how content is authored and presented, maybe it could make a big difference.

dmagee 6y ago
would that turn into mob justice though?
- saurik 6y ago
  Tyranny of the Majority is somewhat brutal--by definition--to minorities :(. The hope that the majority is actually cool with everything seems flawed to me as the majority seems at least mildly puritan and racist, and so you are going to get a bias--even if only subtle--against non-hetero-cis-white-males :(.
flockonus 6y ago
Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
- trevyn 6y ago
  What’s the state of the art here? Is it solvable but nobody’s implemented it yet?
  - saurik 6y ago
    The best known "in the field" solution is Proof of Work, and the best contender being deployed now is Proof of Stake.
- specialist 6y ago
  It's killing me that no one is talking about authentic speech. We have very little. Social mediums (Twitter, HN, Instagram, Yelp, etc) must also support verified identities. Opt-in. Just like metafilter.com. With onerous penalties for impersonation. The outrage machine apologists (select examples below) are trying to post-authentic inauthentic speech. Algorithms will save us. This cannot work. Ever. Because the belligerents in the computational propaganda arms race will always overwhelm authenticity. Tristan Harris - The Social Dilemma Casey Newton - The Verge Philip N. Howard - Lies Machines Frédéric Filloux - News Quality Scoring Project All tortured performant whining about censorship and bias and Section 230 is not helping. No one is going to take away anyone's favorite chew toy. The food fight over lies and bias will continue unabated. -- Said another way: Journalism is real simple. Show your data, cite your sources, sign your name. Support authentic journalism, with real infrastructure. Give people an alternative to the outrage machine.
  - trevyn 6y ago
    There is a flaw in your argument: Anonymous journalism can be perfectly valuable if it can be corroborated by other means.
    - specialist 6y ago
      You think authentic and inauthentic speech are mutually exclusive? Why? Because slippery slope? So I can't have any authentic speech ever because someone might want to remain anon. What am I missing here? On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. We are all anon. There is no verifiable authentic speech. Would you trust unsigned apps? How much science is done anonymously? We insist that websites are authenticated (using HTTPS). But not Freedom Speeches™. Totally different. Authenticating any speech whatsoever is... Is what? How does authenticated speech harm any one? How?
- tunesmith 6y ago
  What about Nextdoor?
AmericanChopper 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter already give every user full moderation powers by allowing them complete control over who/what they follow.
- lambdadmitry 6y ago
  That's not completely true, as both (Facebook being worse as usual) will put "recommended"/"promoted" stuff on your timeline.
- codingdave 6y ago
  That isn't moderation, that is curation. It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.
  - specialist 6y ago
    That's not correct either. They still control my filter bubble. I want my own filter bubble, under my own control.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    If you wanted get semantic about it, user would be moderating their feed when they chose to unfollow a page/person. > It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation. Every single person in the history of our species, has always, will always, and will never be prevented from doing this. The underlying implication of this complaint is that you’d prefer to control what misinformation people consume, rather than letting people choose it for themselves, and make their own minds up about it.
pessimizer 6y ago
I like how the moderation question has completely become the moderation of political content question, which has largely become the moderation of possible Russian or Chinese content, especially in the form of their chaos agents: people who aren't regime centrists (of whatever country they're discussing.) Moderation has literally become moderation. We're sleepwalking into Western lèse-majesté laws. > If there's a huge silent population of kind reasonable people A silent majority, if you will (of people who agree with me about the reasonable boundaries of conversation.)

dmagee 6y ago

would that turn into mob justice though?

saurik 6y ago
Tyranny of the Majority is somewhat brutal--by definition--to minorities :(. The hope that the majority is actually cool with everything seems flawed to me as the majority seems at least mildly puritan and racist, and so you are going to get a bias--even if only subtle--against non-hetero-cis-white-males :(.

flockonus 6y ago

Would only work if the network in question has solved the Sybil[1] identity problem, which is clearly not the case in any network today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

trevyn 6y ago
What’s the state of the art here? Is it solvable but nobody’s implemented it yet?
- saurik 6y ago
  The best known "in the field" solution is Proof of Work, and the best contender being deployed now is Proof of Stake.
specialist 6y ago
It's killing me that no one is talking about authentic speech. We have very little. Social mediums (Twitter, HN, Instagram, Yelp, etc) must also support verified identities. Opt-in. Just like metafilter.com. With onerous penalties for impersonation. The outrage machine apologists (select examples below) are trying to post-authentic inauthentic speech. Algorithms will save us. This cannot work. Ever. Because the belligerents in the computational propaganda arms race will always overwhelm authenticity. Tristan Harris - The Social Dilemma Casey Newton - The Verge Philip N. Howard - Lies Machines Frédéric Filloux - News Quality Scoring Project All tortured performant whining about censorship and bias and Section 230 is not helping. No one is going to take away anyone's favorite chew toy. The food fight over lies and bias will continue unabated. -- Said another way: Journalism is real simple. Show your data, cite your sources, sign your name. Support authentic journalism, with real infrastructure. Give people an alternative to the outrage machine.
- trevyn 6y ago
  There is a flaw in your argument: Anonymous journalism can be perfectly valuable if it can be corroborated by other means.
  - specialist 6y ago
    You think authentic and inauthentic speech are mutually exclusive? Why? Because slippery slope? So I can't have any authentic speech ever because someone might want to remain anon. What am I missing here? On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. We are all anon. There is no verifiable authentic speech. Would you trust unsigned apps? How much science is done anonymously? We insist that websites are authenticated (using HTTPS). But not Freedom Speeches™. Totally different. Authenticating any speech whatsoever is... Is what? How does authenticated speech harm any one? How?
tunesmith 6y ago
What about Nextdoor?

AmericanChopper 6y ago

Facebook and Twitter already give every user full moderation powers by allowing them complete control over who/what they follow.

lambdadmitry 6y ago
That's not completely true, as both (Facebook being worse as usual) will put "recommended"/"promoted" stuff on your timeline.
codingdave 6y ago
That isn't moderation, that is curation. It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation.
- specialist 6y ago
  That's not correct either. They still control my filter bubble. I want my own filter bubble, under my own control.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  If you wanted get semantic about it, user would be moderating their feed when they chose to unfollow a page/person. > It does nothing to prevent people living in self-created silos full of misinformation. Every single person in the history of our species, has always, will always, and will never be prevented from doing this. The underlying implication of this complaint is that you’d prefer to control what misinformation people consume, rather than letting people choose it for themselves, and make their own minds up about it.

pessimizer 6y ago

I like how the moderation question has completely become the moderation of political content question, which has largely become the moderation of possible Russian or Chinese content, especially in the form of their chaos agents: people who aren't regime centrists (of whatever country they're discussing.) Moderation has literally become moderation. We're sleepwalking into Western lèse-majesté laws. > If there's a huge silent population of kind reasonable people A silent majority, if you will (of people who agree with me about the reasonable boundaries of conversation.)