4 ms·

This would definitely end up with most users not wanting to sift through whatever case they get "assigned", and the platform effectively being moderated by a bi

This would definitely end up with most users not wanting to sift through whatever case they get "assigned", and the platform effectively being moderated by a big group of power users. You can already see this happening with Reddit. A handful of people control the subs that make up for like 40% of the content on the site. Also this completely breaks down when you start talking about having a jury agree on what is/isnt hate speech or something similar. You are never going to get an agreement on that.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
1) Real juries perform exactly as you describe. The vast majority of people want to get out. This is not different 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt.
- vkou 5y ago
  > 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt. Real juries have a selection process that it supposed to weed out biased individuals. Real juries have judges that steer them towards a particular way of viewing evidence. Real juries are forbidden from doing their own research, and can only passively listen to lawyers make arguments.
- thebigman433 5y ago
  > 1) Real juries perform exactly as you describe. The vast majority of people want to get out. This is not different Its a requirement in real life. If you try making it a requirement to use your platform, I dont see why any users would stay. I think users will overwhelmingly prefer to have the content curated for them, so they dont have to look at child porn and beheadings every week for the opportunity to use social media. > 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt. This sounds like an incredibly quick way to make your platform just a collection of the worst parts of the internet. A place with a TOS determined by the users where you need an overwhelming majority[1] to convict anything isnt going to last long with people who just wanna share some pictures with friends. [1] Your post says unanimous but Ill give it the benefit of the doubt and assume thats not literal, since getting a unanimous decision is essentially impossible on the internet.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    I am not op, but child porn and beheadings would not be allowed regardless. This is about more gray areas, like should we ban this Joe Rogan episode? I would personally spend a few minutes each week going through an e-jury if that would help scrub the communities I like on reddit. Now reddit is a sterile ecochamber, it could become a much more engaged platfom, like it used to be.
Fordec 5y ago
Sounds like a great use case for a future iteration of captchas. "Please verify you are human by judging if this user is abusive". You don't need agreement, just consensus. You don't need unanimity. Bias can be analyzed handily enough across multiple user "judgements".
- theshrike79 5y ago
  Slashdot used this for moderation, dunno if they still do. Basically people got a random selection of moderated comments and got to choose from different options. If a mod's work was constantly off-base, they would not get mod rights again.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

1) Real juries perform exactly as you describe. The vast majority of people want to get out. This is not different 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt.

vkou 5y ago
> 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt. Real juries have a selection process that it supposed to weed out biased individuals. Real juries have judges that steer them towards a particular way of viewing evidence. Real juries are forbidden from doing their own research, and can only passively listen to lawyers make arguments.
thebigman433 5y ago
> 1) Real juries perform exactly as you describe. The vast majority of people want to get out. This is not different Its a requirement in real life. If you try making it a requirement to use your platform, I dont see why any users would stay. I think users will overwhelmingly prefer to have the content curated for them, so they dont have to look at child porn and beheadings every week for the opportunity to use social media. > 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt. This sounds like an incredibly quick way to make your platform just a collection of the worst parts of the internet. A place with a TOS determined by the users where you need an overwhelming majority[1] to convict anything isnt going to last long with people who just wanna share some pictures with friends. [1] Your post says unanimous but Ill give it the benefit of the doubt and assume thats not literal, since getting a unanimous decision is essentially impossible on the internet.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  I am not op, but child porn and beheadings would not be allowed regardless. This is about more gray areas, like should we ban this Joe Rogan episode? I would personally spend a few minutes each week going through an e-jury if that would help scrub the communities I like on reddit. Now reddit is a sterile ecochamber, it could become a much more engaged platfom, like it used to be.

Fordec 5y ago

Sounds like a great use case for a future iteration of captchas. "Please verify you are human by judging if this user is abusive". You don't need agreement, just consensus. You don't need unanimity. Bias can be analyzed handily enough across multiple user "judgements".

theshrike79 5y ago
Slashdot used this for moderation, dunno if they still do. Basically people got a random selection of moderated comments and got to choose from different options. If a mod's work was constantly off-base, they would not get mod rights again.