6 ms·

> They do not need to be done. You have surely never operated a website that publishes user generated content. Every available textbox and file uploader will b

by yholio 5y ago

> They do not need to be done. You have surely never operated a website that publishes user generated content. Every available textbox and file uploader will be filled with garbage so revolting that, without moderation, will quickly kill any chance of respectability for your site.

brimble 5y ago
You're missing the point. Yes, if you let randos upload publicly-visible media to your site you'll need to check it for illegal material (or, if you're a bigco, pay hundreds or thousands of other people to do it, because god knows the CEO, president, board, et c., won't subject themselves to that). If you have advertisers (or just standards) you'll also need to check it for horrible stuff that's not illegal. And by "you'll", in the case of a place like Facebook, I mean "some other people'll". But you could... not do that.
- Edman274 5y ago
  If you're arguing in good faith you should probably explicitly acknowledge that you recognize that you're using hacker news to argue that a website like hacker news shouldn't exist. Do you think that no one is paid to moderate this site? Do you think that no one has tried to spam illegal content here before?
  - toqy 5y ago
    Are you arguing in good faith? Do you think moderating text on this site is equivalent to what is described in the article?
    - Edman274 5y ago
      Brimble said "If you have advertisers (or just standards) you'll also need to check it for horrible stuff that's not illegal. And by "you'll", in the case of a place like Facebook, I mean "some other people'll". But you could... not do that." Hacker news and Facebook: 1. Have advertisers (and just standards) 2. Check it for horrible stuff that's "not illegal" 3. Using "some other people'll" that are paid with money. Now, here's the thing. Facebook and Hacker news are not equivalent in quality or quantity when it comes to how much illegal or horrible content is uploaded to them. But they both have advertisers, a risk of bad content, and use at least one paid moderator to prevent bad content from existing. Brimble is saying that Facebook and other hypothetical services could "not do that", which either means that: 1. The website / service will not exist or 2. Paid moderation on that service will not exist or 3. Moderation on that service will not exist or 4. User created content on that service will not exist. That would affect Facebook and hacker news. No, I do not believe that hacker news is exposed to as much illegal and horrible content as Facebook. However, it is exposed to some, and it seems like the remedy in both cases is for the website to not exist. I'm pretty sure that if someone asked dang whether they had ever, in their years of moderating this site, seen something that disturbed them, he'd answer yes. I'm certain of it.
    - camdat 5y ago
      So the medium is the only point of contention? If HN supported image uploads you'd argue it shouldn't exist?
      - toqy 5y ago
        When did I ever argue that something shouldn't exist? I only pointed out a false equivalence in the parent comment. If you want to know my opinion though, I don't personally get enough value out of facebook, instagram, etc to use them at all. So if you were to ask me if the price of psychological damage to content moderation/review workers is worth it, I'd say no.
  - brimble 5y ago
    Three times with: "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" in the thread! I wasn't even trying to get those kinds of responses. Amazing.
    - Edman274 5y ago
      The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. The reason what you're saying is not convincing, and why people keep pointing it out, is that you're saying in effect "a product that I freely use should never have existed". Let me spell it out for you. * The peasant doesn't get to choose whether he participates in society. * The peasant wants to improve society. Here's you: * You get to choose whether you use hacker news, and you have decided to use hacker news. * You think that websites like hacker news should not exist. Do you see why your argument isn't convincing? Your riposte of "yet you participate in society" could be used for literally anything. You're saying that hacker news shouldn't exist, but you don't actually believe that. If you argue things you don't believe, it's not really a good faith discussion.
      - brimble 5y ago
        > The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. If we're gonna cite the comic, three out of the four panels of the comic do not rely on this, and are precisely about using something by choice even while saying they should be different. The last panel is even more extreme because it's funnier that way, presumably, but the core point does not rely on lack of choice. The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts. > but you don't actually believe that. Nice mind reading. Shall I baselessly speculate about your posts while accusing you of being a bad actor, too? No, no I shall not.

by yholio 5y ago

brimble 5y ago

You're missing the point. Yes, if you let randos upload publicly-visible media to your site you'll need to check it for illegal material (or, if you're a bigco, pay hundreds or thousands of other people to do it, because god knows the CEO, president, board, et c., won't subject themselves to that). If you have advertisers (or just standards) you'll also need to check it for horrible stuff that's not illegal. And by "you'll", in the case of a place like Facebook, I mean "some other people'll". But you could... not do that.

Edman274 5y ago
If you're arguing in good faith you should probably explicitly acknowledge that you recognize that you're using hacker news to argue that a website like hacker news shouldn't exist. Do you think that no one is paid to moderate this site? Do you think that no one has tried to spam illegal content here before?
- toqy 5y ago
  Are you arguing in good faith? Do you think moderating text on this site is equivalent to what is described in the article?
  - Edman274 5y ago
    Brimble said "If you have advertisers (or just standards) you'll also need to check it for horrible stuff that's not illegal. And by "you'll", in the case of a place like Facebook, I mean "some other people'll". But you could... not do that." Hacker news and Facebook: 1. Have advertisers (and just standards) 2. Check it for horrible stuff that's "not illegal" 3. Using "some other people'll" that are paid with money. Now, here's the thing. Facebook and Hacker news are not equivalent in quality or quantity when it comes to how much illegal or horrible content is uploaded to them. But they both have advertisers, a risk of bad content, and use at least one paid moderator to prevent bad content from existing. Brimble is saying that Facebook and other hypothetical services could "not do that", which either means that: 1. The website / service will not exist or 2. Paid moderation on that service will not exist or 3. Moderation on that service will not exist or 4. User created content on that service will not exist. That would affect Facebook and hacker news. No, I do not believe that hacker news is exposed to as much illegal and horrible content as Facebook. However, it is exposed to some, and it seems like the remedy in both cases is for the website to not exist. I'm pretty sure that if someone asked dang whether they had ever, in their years of moderating this site, seen something that disturbed them, he'd answer yes. I'm certain of it.
  - camdat 5y ago
    So the medium is the only point of contention? If HN supported image uploads you'd argue it shouldn't exist?
    - toqy 5y ago
      When did I ever argue that something shouldn't exist? I only pointed out a false equivalence in the parent comment. If you want to know my opinion though, I don't personally get enough value out of facebook, instagram, etc to use them at all. So if you were to ask me if the price of psychological damage to content moderation/review workers is worth it, I'd say no.
- brimble 5y ago
  Three times with: "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" in the thread! I wasn't even trying to get those kinds of responses. Amazing.
  - Edman274 5y ago
    The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. The reason what you're saying is not convincing, and why people keep pointing it out, is that you're saying in effect "a product that I freely use should never have existed". Let me spell it out for you. * The peasant doesn't get to choose whether he participates in society. * The peasant wants to improve society. Here's you: * You get to choose whether you use hacker news, and you have decided to use hacker news. * You think that websites like hacker news should not exist. Do you see why your argument isn't convincing? Your riposte of "yet you participate in society" could be used for literally anything. You're saying that hacker news shouldn't exist, but you don't actually believe that. If you argue things you don't believe, it's not really a good faith discussion.
    - brimble 5y ago
      > The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. If we're gonna cite the comic, three out of the four panels of the comic do not rely on this, and are precisely about using something by choice even while saying they should be different. The last panel is even more extreme because it's funnier that way, presumably, but the core point does not rely on lack of choice. The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts. > but you don't actually believe that. Nice mind reading. Shall I baselessly speculate about your posts while accusing you of being a bad actor, too? No, no I shall not.