3 ms·

For a community that really valued anonymous posting, couldn't you let members vouch for anonymous posts before making them visible? If no one vouches then they

For a community that really valued anonymous posting, couldn't you let members vouch for anonymous posts before making them visible? If no one vouches then they disappear. Like, hacker news almost allows anonymous posting because the account creation is so simple.

rvba 5y ago
This will end up in a situation where some people vouch for illegal stuff because they like it, or "for the lulz". For example there were multiple "name a product" contests raided by trolls- because nobody moderated the inputs. HN has its own problems: the "flag" feature is abused by brigaders to censor content.
- lolc 5y ago
  You can ban the lulzers who vouch for stuff you don't want.
  - dangerface 5y ago
    If its an anonymous community you can't they will just switch to a different ip on their vpn etc unless you can deanonomise them
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      The proposed community still has non-anonymous members who could accrue good standing, it just also allows anonymous posting.
gfosco 5y ago
HN has the flagging system, votes, regulars, and the mods.. and it scales very well they are always on top of it. Gab, the free speech social network, deals with this topic a lot... and likewise does moderation with a flagging system, volunteers, group mods, and site mods. The community is far larger, but our policies are much simpler to compensate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
netcan 5y ago
Maybe, but "a community that really valued anonymous posting" is likely to be defined by this value. The first "problem" is that likely use cases are users/comments/topics that aren't allowed elsewhere. So.. that community will tend to be a haven for whatever content other sites have actively ejected. That doesn't make it impossible to have anonymous accounts, but it is a high tradeoff decision and likely a defining one. I think it's more applicable for sites that have somewhat more objective and/or legible goals. Wiki-ish sites, for example. If there's a lot of free form discussion... anonymity is probably a bad decision for the site owner.
- evandwight 5y ago
  One of the amazing things about Reddit is how different communities compete with each other. Allowing individual subreddits to enable anonymous posting lets the market decide if the pros outweigh the cons. (If the subreddit has a history of bad moderation, ban the subreddit) I feel like giving communities more options in customizing the algorithm that dictates the discussion is powerful.
  - netcan 5y ago
    Yeah. Reddit's structure gives us a lot of insight.
easton 5y ago
Hacker News allows it (how else are you gonna get that hot FAANG goss?) but it's actively discouraged: "Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rvba 5y ago

This will end up in a situation where some people vouch for illegal stuff because they like it, or "for the lulz". For example there were multiple "name a product" contests raided by trolls- because nobody moderated the inputs. HN has its own problems: the "flag" feature is abused by brigaders to censor content.

lolc 5y ago
You can ban the lulzers who vouch for stuff you don't want.
- dangerface 5y ago
  If its an anonymous community you can't they will just switch to a different ip on their vpn etc unless you can deanonomise them
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    The proposed community still has non-anonymous members who could accrue good standing, it just also allows anonymous posting.

gfosco 5y ago

HN has the flagging system, votes, regulars, and the mods.. and it scales very well they are always on top of it. Gab, the free speech social network, deals with this topic a lot... and likewise does moderation with a flagging system, volunteers, group mods, and site mods. The community is far larger, but our policies are much simpler to compensate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

netcan 5y ago

Maybe, but "a community that really valued anonymous posting" is likely to be defined by this value. The first "problem" is that likely use cases are users/comments/topics that aren't allowed elsewhere. So.. that community will tend to be a haven for whatever content other sites have actively ejected. That doesn't make it impossible to have anonymous accounts, but it is a high tradeoff decision and likely a defining one. I think it's more applicable for sites that have somewhat more objective and/or legible goals. Wiki-ish sites, for example. If there's a lot of free form discussion... anonymity is probably a bad decision for the site owner.

evandwight 5y ago
One of the amazing things about Reddit is how different communities compete with each other. Allowing individual subreddits to enable anonymous posting lets the market decide if the pros outweigh the cons. (If the subreddit has a history of bad moderation, ban the subreddit) I feel like giving communities more options in customizing the algorithm that dictates the discussion is powerful.
- netcan 5y ago
  Yeah. Reddit's structure gives us a lot of insight.

easton 5y ago

Hacker News allows it (how else are you gonna get that hot FAANG goss?) but it's actively discouraged: "Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html