3 ms·

My response to the title is: "No, but it requires more resources than most are willing to admit or give." The crux of the issue is that there's no "cost" to be

My response to the title is: "No, but it requires more resources than most are willing to admit or give." The crux of the issue is that there's no "cost" to be bad. If there was a "cost" then bad actors would go away for quickly. Any "cost" you impose will be diametrically opposed to popularity - but a low volume/unpopular site is unlikely to be abused to begin with.

throwaway3699 6y ago
The problem is the costs of content moderation are not linear. You are not dealing with a few thousand trolls. You're dealing with bot farms impersonating possibly over a million accounts. Huge groups of networks operated by just a few dozen people. Automating that away is the only path to being on equal footing. If you introduce any human element, not only will it be a bottleneck, but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies.
- cryptoz 6y ago
  > but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies. In my opinion, if you can't hire enough people to moderate without going bankrupt, then bankrupt you go! Would this mean we can't have social media? Maybe. Probably for the best. But you can't moderate then you go out of business. That's the way it should be. Probably then people would find a way to moderate and stay afloat.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    That would apply to every website with a comments section, sadly. I think the solution to this is smaller, more isolated groups -- with limited edges between. Back to email threads and Mumble servers, imo. The downside is we'll all be living in filter bubbles, but I think any shared community with a common value (like a video game) is better than some ginormous platform like Facebook.
    - denimnerd42 6y ago
      I am really disappointed that all the php bulletin board forums I used to visit as a teen and young adult have all died off or been sold to an advertising conglomerate and most of the users have fled to Facebook groups. Facebook is just not the same as a forum. The quality of posts is lower, the reposting is much higher, and the sense of community is actually lost. Facebook has even killed craigslist. Or at least greatly reduced the usefulness.
    - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
      >The downside is we'll all be living in filter bubbles That already seems to be the case.
  - johnnyanmac 6y ago
    >Would this mean we can't have social media? Maybe. Probably for the best. the vast majority of websites operate perfectly fine without a comment section (and some already have removed them). This isn't as far off a reality as you jest. In any case, it's ultimately a cultural choice, like any other social element. Maybe America somehow bans comments without ties to real world ID and all the major american sites pivot into little more than coporate news aggregators. It wouldn't stop other countries and their respective forums that users seeking discussion would run to. And I doubt there would be some strong enforcements to make sure Americans aren't commening on WeChat or Weibo or some other non-American service.
- kingsuper20 6y ago
  "You are not dealing with a few thousand trolls." In my own experience, it's the trolls that are rather confounding. Go to any twitter poster with even a slightly political bent. Look for the first shitty person. Look at their posting history. It'll nearly always be 100 post/day of shittiness telling you just what you need to hear. Unless the evil Russians are extremely clever, it all appears to be grassroots poor behavior. I guess you can view social media as a giant laboratory showing the behavior of people when they are not nose-to-nose with you in a bar. It's all super disappointing. Maybe there's a place for highly curated social media.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  How about making people put down a bond of even a small amount say $10 and something tied to your actual ID. The registrar knows who you are but sites only know you are a verified person but not who you are. If you are found to be a fake person you forfeit the bond. Now it costs $100,0000 to create 10k fake people and you can lose it all tomorrow.
  - drdeca 6y ago
    This seems nice, but it would be nicer if there was a cryptographic way to be sure that the site couldn't obtain your id from the registrar. Is this doable? Or maybe these requirements together are contradictory?
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      If you are using an email to sign up and verifying that user actually controls email as is normal presumably they could look up the bond with your email. Essentially registrar and major sites would coordinate to get bot accounts revoked your registrar wouldn't want to cancel user accounts erroneously. In most cases logically the registrar could be your email provider which would just be selling a verified email address but a third party could offer the same thing.
mikepurvis 6y ago
Even with infinity resources available for manual human moderation, you eventually hit a wall where different sub-communities will simply have different standards for what is acceptable to them— what might be reasonable debate in one circle is gaslighting and triggering to people elsewhere. It's not really up to the platform to impose a global code of conduct, and attempting to do so (outside of banning the most obvious of bad behaviours or things that are actually illegal) never seems to go well for platforms. So yeah, I agree with TFA in the sense that these are problems to be solved largely at the system level. For example, compared to Twitter (where anyone can reply-to, quote, RT, and @user anyone), Twitch and Tiktok seem to do well at permitting individual creators to have their own space with their own exclusive authority over what is and isn't okay in the space. And they have (or at least enable to exist) lots of tools for exerting that authority— witness things like "bye trolls" scripts on Twitch that do have to be set up in advance, but then can be used at the drop of a hat in response to brigading to immediately close the stream to new followers, and disallow posts from non-followers, plus delete chat posts from anyone who joined the stream in the last X minutes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnyanmac 6y ago
  >you eventually hit a wall where different sub-communities will simply have different standards for what is acceptable to them with the utopic assumption of infinite moderation, I don't see a problem here. Different houses will have different rules and levels of moderation (a meme community will have different standards from a more sensitive topic). As long as the moderation informs newcomers of the rules, they behave under that sub-community if they choose to participate (while respecting global community rules, and of course server country laws). This is all under the assumption that "sub-community" is distinctly defined. For something truly monolithic like Twitter, the only choice seems to be to leave control to the individual, and perhaps allow private groups to be formed.

throwaway3699 6y ago

The problem is the costs of content moderation are not linear. You are not dealing with a few thousand trolls. You're dealing with bot farms impersonating possibly over a million accounts. Huge groups of networks operated by just a few dozen people. Automating that away is the only path to being on equal footing. If you introduce any human element, not only will it be a bottleneck, but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies.

cryptoz 6y ago
> but the cost could be large enough to bankrupt even the largest companies. In my opinion, if you can't hire enough people to moderate without going bankrupt, then bankrupt you go! Would this mean we can't have social media? Maybe. Probably for the best. But you can't moderate then you go out of business. That's the way it should be. Probably then people would find a way to moderate and stay afloat.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  That would apply to every website with a comments section, sadly. I think the solution to this is smaller, more isolated groups -- with limited edges between. Back to email threads and Mumble servers, imo. The downside is we'll all be living in filter bubbles, but I think any shared community with a common value (like a video game) is better than some ginormous platform like Facebook.
  - denimnerd42 6y ago
    I am really disappointed that all the php bulletin board forums I used to visit as a teen and young adult have all died off or been sold to an advertising conglomerate and most of the users have fled to Facebook groups. Facebook is just not the same as a forum. The quality of posts is lower, the reposting is much higher, and the sense of community is actually lost. Facebook has even killed craigslist. Or at least greatly reduced the usefulness.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    >The downside is we'll all be living in filter bubbles That already seems to be the case.
- johnnyanmac 6y ago
  >Would this mean we can't have social media? Maybe. Probably for the best. the vast majority of websites operate perfectly fine without a comment section (and some already have removed them). This isn't as far off a reality as you jest. In any case, it's ultimately a cultural choice, like any other social element. Maybe America somehow bans comments without ties to real world ID and all the major american sites pivot into little more than coporate news aggregators. It wouldn't stop other countries and their respective forums that users seeking discussion would run to. And I doubt there would be some strong enforcements to make sure Americans aren't commening on WeChat or Weibo or some other non-American service.
kingsuper20 6y ago
"You are not dealing with a few thousand trolls." In my own experience, it's the trolls that are rather confounding. Go to any twitter poster with even a slightly political bent. Look for the first shitty person. Look at their posting history. It'll nearly always be 100 post/day of shittiness telling you just what you need to hear. Unless the evil Russians are extremely clever, it all appears to be grassroots poor behavior. I guess you can view social media as a giant laboratory showing the behavior of people when they are not nose-to-nose with you in a bar. It's all super disappointing. Maybe there's a place for highly curated social media.
michaelmrose 6y ago
How about making people put down a bond of even a small amount say $10 and something tied to your actual ID. The registrar knows who you are but sites only know you are a verified person but not who you are. If you are found to be a fake person you forfeit the bond. Now it costs $100,0000 to create 10k fake people and you can lose it all tomorrow.
- drdeca 6y ago
  This seems nice, but it would be nicer if there was a cryptographic way to be sure that the site couldn't obtain your id from the registrar. Is this doable? Or maybe these requirements together are contradictory?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    If you are using an email to sign up and verifying that user actually controls email as is normal presumably they could look up the bond with your email. Essentially registrar and major sites would coordinate to get bot accounts revoked your registrar wouldn't want to cancel user accounts erroneously. In most cases logically the registrar could be your email provider which would just be selling a verified email address but a third party could offer the same thing.

mikepurvis 6y ago

Even with infinity resources available for manual human moderation, you eventually hit a wall where different sub-communities will simply have different standards for what is acceptable to them— what might be reasonable debate in one circle is gaslighting and triggering to people elsewhere. It's not really up to the platform to impose a global code of conduct, and attempting to do so (outside of banning the most obvious of bad behaviours or things that are actually illegal) never seems to go well for platforms. So yeah, I agree with TFA in the sense that these are problems to be solved largely at the system level. For example, compared to Twitter (where anyone can reply-to, quote, RT, and @user anyone), Twitch and Tiktok seem to do well at permitting individual creators to have their own space with their own exclusive authority over what is and isn't okay in the space. And they have (or at least enable to exist) lots of tools for exerting that authority— witness things like "bye trolls" scripts on Twitch that do have to be set up in advance, but then can be used at the drop of a hat in response to brigading to immediately close the stream to new followers, and disallow posts from non-followers, plus delete chat posts from anyone who joined the stream in the last X minutes.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
johnnyanmac 6y ago
>you eventually hit a wall where different sub-communities will simply have different standards for what is acceptable to them with the utopic assumption of infinite moderation, I don't see a problem here. Different houses will have different rules and levels of moderation (a meme community will have different standards from a more sensitive topic). As long as the moderation informs newcomers of the rules, they behave under that sub-community if they choose to participate (while respecting global community rules, and of course server country laws). This is all under the assumption that "sub-community" is distinctly defined. For something truly monolithic like Twitter, the only choice seems to be to leave control to the individual, and perhaps allow private groups to be formed.