3 ms·

This is a false dichotomy. There are other ways to implement moderation that isn't censorship. I've proposed "blocklists" before, where users could create dif

by tomp 5y ago

This is a false dichotomy. There are other ways to implement moderation that isn't censorship. I've proposed "blocklists" before, where users could create different blocklists (e.g. "no vegans"), other users could subscribe to them, and there would be some default blocklists (e.g. "no porn" and "no gore") that people could also unsubscribe...

bcrl 5y ago
The only problem with that idea is that the blocklists will inevitably end up being used to slander and malign other groups as people will use them to assign unpleasant labels to others. In the end, someone will need to moderate the lists, so you're right back at the same moderation problem. Humans on the internet tend to find all the creative ways to be assholes-at-scale.
- dataduck 5y ago
  So long as everyone using the platform can modify their own list, no it's not the same problem at all. The question is: do I get to decide who I listen to, or do you?
  - philistine 5y ago
    Do you get to decide who can use Twitter, or does Twitter?
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    Who to listen to, where? Out on the street? You do. On someone else's platform? Also you. You choosing to listen to something doesn't mean you also get to force whatever platforms you want, to carry whatever you choose to listen to. I find it hard to believe that there is someone you want to listen to, who you currently aren't able to, because twitter deplatformed them.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    You can already block people on Twitter. The problem arises with shared blocklists. How is a shared blocklist identified? Well, the odds are that it will probably need to have a name. You now have the following problem: the name can be used to promote hate if the name of that blocklist is visible to other users, or to falsely associate a given user with other nefarious groups, as Google will probably crawl the lists and the results will show up in searches. The whole thing ends up being exactly an added moderation mess, just like what you started with, but with a few more layers of indirection and different ways it can be abused. Plus you still have the original problem of moderating messages that needs to be solved. Solutions like this look great initially if everyone uses them properly, but everything falls apart when people inevitably start actively abusing the new feature. The design needs to handle assholes-at-scale from the outset.

by tomp 5y ago

bcrl 5y ago

The only problem with that idea is that the blocklists will inevitably end up being used to slander and malign other groups as people will use them to assign unpleasant labels to others. In the end, someone will need to moderate the lists, so you're right back at the same moderation problem. Humans on the internet tend to find all the creative ways to be assholes-at-scale.

dataduck 5y ago
So long as everyone using the platform can modify their own list, no it's not the same problem at all. The question is: do I get to decide who I listen to, or do you?
- philistine 5y ago
  Do you get to decide who can use Twitter, or does Twitter?
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  Who to listen to, where? Out on the street? You do. On someone else's platform? Also you. You choosing to listen to something doesn't mean you also get to force whatever platforms you want, to carry whatever you choose to listen to. I find it hard to believe that there is someone you want to listen to, who you currently aren't able to, because twitter deplatformed them.
- bcrl 5y ago
  You can already block people on Twitter. The problem arises with shared blocklists. How is a shared blocklist identified? Well, the odds are that it will probably need to have a name. You now have the following problem: the name can be used to promote hate if the name of that blocklist is visible to other users, or to falsely associate a given user with other nefarious groups, as Google will probably crawl the lists and the results will show up in searches. The whole thing ends up being exactly an added moderation mess, just like what you started with, but with a few more layers of indirection and different ways it can be abused. Plus you still have the original problem of moderating messages that needs to be solved. Solutions like this look great initially if everyone uses them properly, but everything falls apart when people inevitably start actively abusing the new feature. The design needs to handle assholes-at-scale from the outset.