3 ms·

Interesting idea. It'd likely kill off trolling or low quality comments as there wouldn't be the eyeballs for engagement for dopamine hits to reinforce that lev

by loceng 6y ago

Interesting idea. It'd likely kill off trolling or low quality comments as there wouldn't be the eyeballs for engagement for dopamine hits to reinforce that level of behaviour.

amelius 6y ago
A similar approach could work in "hierarchical/threaded" forums: comments are private between parent and child, unless the parent says the child comment can be public.
- loceng 6y ago
  Yes, that's a nice moderation approach - allowing OP to be curator. It also allows OP the opportunity to comment before the thread starts to become public - giving a chance for a response to clarify, rebut, or other.
- AaronM 6y ago
  Think about how that would work in reverse. Lets say you post something fake, like 5G causes covid. And any response that calls out your post as being fake, you just hide.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Which is why you need a "God" level of moderation (or really just parenting, parents watching the child in the playground as we all try to understand and master consciousness) for every platform - where they have the ability to add a warning tag/comment - or moderate that person off of platform either as a timeout or permanently; and then having many platforms that are privately owned deciding how they govern is how we de-risk government tyrannical control mechanisms being in place that then apply to all platforms. And then users decide/"vote" with what platform or network they align with based on if they use it or not; the issue of allowing users and their networks to being easily mobile/data and network operability is important then to reduce the friction of this being possible. And then the layers of infrastructure are additional layers of decentralized control mechanisms, e.g. Amazon/AWS kicking off Parler, Parler then needing to eventually find infrastructure that was supportive of their lack of moderation against calls for violence, etc. At least then lines are drawn and we can see who's allying with who, and people can respond or behave accordingly.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Who pays the god moderators, and what happens when they abuse their power to bias the discussion?
      - loceng 6y ago
        Then people move to a different platform; what's the alternative - you let government choose or you allow wild west where no moderation is allowed?
  - amelius 6y ago
    Well, you could still downvote other people's posts. So if this happened on HN, the subthread probably wouldn't survive long.

by loceng 6y ago

Interesting idea. It'd likely kill off trolling or low quality comments as there wouldn't be the eyeballs for engagement for dopamine hits to reinforce that level of behaviour.

amelius 6y ago

A similar approach could work in "hierarchical/threaded" forums: comments are private between parent and child, unless the parent says the child comment can be public.

loceng 6y ago
Yes, that's a nice moderation approach - allowing OP to be curator. It also allows OP the opportunity to comment before the thread starts to become public - giving a chance for a response to clarify, rebut, or other.
AaronM 6y ago
Think about how that would work in reverse. Lets say you post something fake, like 5G causes covid. And any response that calls out your post as being fake, you just hide.
- loceng 6y ago
  Which is why you need a "God" level of moderation (or really just parenting, parents watching the child in the playground as we all try to understand and master consciousness) for every platform - where they have the ability to add a warning tag/comment - or moderate that person off of platform either as a timeout or permanently; and then having many platforms that are privately owned deciding how they govern is how we de-risk government tyrannical control mechanisms being in place that then apply to all platforms. And then users decide/"vote" with what platform or network they align with based on if they use it or not; the issue of allowing users and their networks to being easily mobile/data and network operability is important then to reduce the friction of this being possible. And then the layers of infrastructure are additional layers of decentralized control mechanisms, e.g. Amazon/AWS kicking off Parler, Parler then needing to eventually find infrastructure that was supportive of their lack of moderation against calls for violence, etc. At least then lines are drawn and we can see who's allying with who, and people can respond or behave accordingly.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Who pays the god moderators, and what happens when they abuse their power to bias the discussion?
    - loceng 6y ago
      Then people move to a different platform; what's the alternative - you let government choose or you allow wild west where no moderation is allowed?
- amelius 6y ago
  Well, you could still downvote other people's posts. So if this happened on HN, the subthread probably wouldn't survive long.