3 ms·
I agree with this article that a social network without moderation is worthless. However what this describes is not moderation, it is filtering. There needs t
by slg 6y ago
I agree with this article that a social network without moderation is worthless. However what this describes is not moderation, it is filtering. There needs to be some form of moderation.
Imagine a scenario in which a revenge porn image is posted to the site. Is the victim's primary recourse simply to block the image on their end? That would leave them without any power to prevent the poster from sharing that image with anyone and everyone the victim knows. The victim might not even be immediately aware of that harassment if they block the image. Putting the burden on the end user to control what they see is not moderation. There needs to be some way for that content to be removed from the system globally for moderation to be effective.
- robryk 6y agoThe Web does not really have any such mechanisms (and certainly didn't have them back in the times where we had more search engines). Do you think Web is different in a way that makes it not require them, or that it suffers from their lack?
- slg 6y ago> Do you think Web is different in a way that makes it not require them The web is a pull based model while social media is push based. That means social media is much more prone to this type of harassing behavior. I would also argue that the web as a whole doesn't address this problem well as is seen with what the NYT recently revealed about Pornhub.
- user-the-name 6y agoYes, the purpose of moderation is far wider than "I don't want to see this post". It is there to protect people from malicious activities, and also very importantly, it is there to shape the community. Moderation is needed to set limits of what is and isn't accepted in a community. If those limits are not present, communities quickly succumb to its worst elements.