4 ms·

> Note that you’re choosing to spend your time on HN (a relatively strongly moderated forum) instead of a less moderated forum like 8chan’s This is a good poin

by tailspin2019 5y ago

> Note that you’re choosing to spend your time on HN (a relatively strongly moderated forum) instead of a less moderated forum like 8chan’s This is a good point! I agree with both you and the parent - which is to say that I'm entirely torn on this subject. Moderation on platforms makes sense. Trying to work out where to draw the line is difficult. And free speech is incredibly important. How to balance these competing concerns is really beyond me. I'm a proponent of the idea of "the solution to bad speech, is more speech", but if you take this to its logical conclusion on the internet, you often end up in the wild west.

themitigating 5y ago
"I'm a proponent of the idea of "the solution to bad speech, is more speech", but if you take this to its logical conclusion on the internet, you often end up in the wild west." If that's the logical conclusion, and I'm making the assumption this based on your observations, why are you a proponent of it? "I think this is for the best, however it always leads to problems"
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  > "I think this is for the best, however it always leads to problems" Well to be fair, I did say I was torn on this and have no answers :) The concept of "the solution to bad speech, being more speech" is somewhat of a safe default to me. All things being equal, I think it's more important to err on the side of protecting the voices of those who should and need to be heard, while accepting the risk that these very protections may also inadvertently benefit "extremists" in that they too are more likely to be heard. I prefer this balance, as opposed to the opposite, of strict moderation. Silencing the voices of those with something important to say, in order to ensure that we don't let any extremists get their views out. So that's my default starting position. But I'm not absolutist about it. I think we can't be too binary about it, at either end of the spectrum. The answer is not one of two choices, "100% no free speech" or "100% free speech". Instead, it's presumably somewhere in the middle. So the answer is probably, "light touch, just enough moderation, based on some form of consensus". How you define "just enough" is a tough problem. Perhaps it's the consensus part that's missing at the moment.
Geee 5y ago
I don't think it's a free speech issue. It's just a scalability / UX issue arising from the problem that 100,000 people are trying to communicate in the same room, and 99% of those people have nothing new to add to the conversation. The self-moderation features on Reddit and HN are a step in the right direction. On Twitter and Facebook, there is no downvoting, which amplifies low quality content. This decision is tied to their revenue generation models, because they don't want to limit participation. Reddit and HN focus on improving signal to noise-ratio, which is more important metric, and I think even more can be done in this direction.
deadpannini 5y ago
I think this only appears to be a contradiction, because your concerns apply at different scales. You can reconcile the tension by insisting that the public utility platforms (e.g., Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc.) remain neutral with respect to non-criminal content, but give people the tools to moderate and curate speech at a more granular level (like subreddits, or tools to filter who you see on Twitter).
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  I like this idea, but things like “tools to filter who you see on Twitter” rely on self moderating of content you’re exposed to. We all already have that capability in many respects. Eg I don’t really use Twitter at all apart from the odd tweet that will be referred to me. I moderate what I see by actively avoiding most social media (aside from HN of course) because I’ve decided that this is the easiest way to avoid sub-standard content that doesn’t add value for me. (A sweeping statement but just for sake of argument). So let’s say someone says something extremely insulting about a minority group - just on the right side of legal, but otherwise a disgusting remark when measured against social norms. Do we say that the utility platforms shouldn’t touch this because it’s not illegal? Because some of those subgroups of people and individuals with the moderation/curation responsibilities will proliferate that content rather than moderate it. I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’m not arguing for strong censorship - I don’t have a counter suggestion, I’m just thinking it through…

themitigating 5y ago

"I'm a proponent of the idea of "the solution to bad speech, is more speech", but if you take this to its logical conclusion on the internet, you often end up in the wild west." If that's the logical conclusion, and I'm making the assumption this based on your observations, why are you a proponent of it? "I think this is for the best, however it always leads to problems"

tailspin2019 5y ago
> "I think this is for the best, however it always leads to problems" Well to be fair, I did say I was torn on this and have no answers :) The concept of "the solution to bad speech, being more speech" is somewhat of a safe default to me. All things being equal, I think it's more important to err on the side of protecting the voices of those who should and need to be heard, while accepting the risk that these very protections may also inadvertently benefit "extremists" in that they too are more likely to be heard. I prefer this balance, as opposed to the opposite, of strict moderation. Silencing the voices of those with something important to say, in order to ensure that we don't let any extremists get their views out. So that's my default starting position. But I'm not absolutist about it. I think we can't be too binary about it, at either end of the spectrum. The answer is not one of two choices, "100% no free speech" or "100% free speech". Instead, it's presumably somewhere in the middle. So the answer is probably, "light touch, just enough moderation, based on some form of consensus". How you define "just enough" is a tough problem. Perhaps it's the consensus part that's missing at the moment.

Geee 5y ago

I don't think it's a free speech issue. It's just a scalability / UX issue arising from the problem that 100,000 people are trying to communicate in the same room, and 99% of those people have nothing new to add to the conversation. The self-moderation features on Reddit and HN are a step in the right direction. On Twitter and Facebook, there is no downvoting, which amplifies low quality content. This decision is tied to their revenue generation models, because they don't want to limit participation. Reddit and HN focus on improving signal to noise-ratio, which is more important metric, and I think even more can be done in this direction.

deadpannini 5y ago

I think this only appears to be a contradiction, because your concerns apply at different scales. You can reconcile the tension by insisting that the public utility platforms (e.g., Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, etc.) remain neutral with respect to non-criminal content, but give people the tools to moderate and curate speech at a more granular level (like subreddits, or tools to filter who you see on Twitter).

tailspin2019 5y ago
I like this idea, but things like “tools to filter who you see on Twitter” rely on self moderating of content you’re exposed to. We all already have that capability in many respects. Eg I don’t really use Twitter at all apart from the odd tweet that will be referred to me. I moderate what I see by actively avoiding most social media (aside from HN of course) because I’ve decided that this is the easiest way to avoid sub-standard content that doesn’t add value for me. (A sweeping statement but just for sake of argument). So let’s say someone says something extremely insulting about a minority group - just on the right side of legal, but otherwise a disgusting remark when measured against social norms. Do we say that the utility platforms shouldn’t touch this because it’s not illegal? Because some of those subgroups of people and individuals with the moderation/curation responsibilities will proliferate that content rather than moderate it. I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’m not arguing for strong censorship - I don’t have a counter suggestion, I’m just thinking it through…