3 ms·

Moderation is a hard problem, but not as hard as people like to claim. The solution is transparency.

by PixyMisa 4y ago

therouwboat 4y ago
People are unreasonable, they are not going to accept punishment just because you tell them what rule they broke.
- hk__2 4y ago
  Exactly. Most moderation cases on the French Wikipedia are 100% transparent but people still argue about the decisions, complain that the admins are biased in favor of whatever political side, and continue doing bad behavior that they've repeatedly been told it's against the rules. Also, the more transparency you have the more you get things like "but you did this and that for Alice last time, that's so inconsistent with your decision about Bob today!!1!". Yup, it's not consistent because it's human and constantly evolving, people get better with experience, cases are never 100% the same, etc.
- russellendicott 4y ago
  > People are unreasonable, they are not going to accept punishment just because you tell them what rule they broke. You'll never stop the banned person from being angry. The point of transparency is so that you provide something to make the mob think twice about grabbing pitchforks. It's the same reason we have a justice system, to stop vigilante justice from tearing apart society. You have provide the illusion of justice or people make their own judgements based on limited information. Of course it won't be perfect every time. You just have to persuade _enough_ people.
  - intended 4y ago
    That doesnt stop the mob. If there is an emotionally resonant argument that can be made in favor of the banned user, then a mob will form. Procedure, objectivity, precedent be damned. You are essentially describing the court of public opinion, which is governed by deeper rules that are hardwired into our social brains.
hk__2 4y ago
I don't want to sound dismissive, but that's the naive answer. Transparency may make it easier to understand for the 95% easy cases, but doesn't help for the rest and may even be counterproductive. Think about shadow-banning (even HN does it): it's very effective because it's based on the absence of transparency. Sometimes people do bad stuff and you don't want to tell them everything you know on the case because it may tip them about who reported these things (think about harassment/doxxing cases) or how you investigated it and so help them change their strategy next time (think about spam issues).

Moderation is a hard problem, but not as hard as people like to claim. The solution is transparency.

therouwboat 4y ago

People are unreasonable, they are not going to accept punishment just because you tell them what rule they broke.

hk__2 4y ago
Exactly. Most moderation cases on the French Wikipedia are 100% transparent but people still argue about the decisions, complain that the admins are biased in favor of whatever political side, and continue doing bad behavior that they've repeatedly been told it's against the rules. Also, the more transparency you have the more you get things like "but you did this and that for Alice last time, that's so inconsistent with your decision about Bob today!!1!". Yup, it's not consistent because it's human and constantly evolving, people get better with experience, cases are never 100% the same, etc.
russellendicott 4y ago
> People are unreasonable, they are not going to accept punishment just because you tell them what rule they broke. You'll never stop the banned person from being angry. The point of transparency is so that you provide something to make the mob think twice about grabbing pitchforks. It's the same reason we have a justice system, to stop vigilante justice from tearing apart society. You have provide the illusion of justice or people make their own judgements based on limited information. Of course it won't be perfect every time. You just have to persuade _enough_ people.
- intended 4y ago
  That doesnt stop the mob. If there is an emotionally resonant argument that can be made in favor of the banned user, then a mob will form. Procedure, objectivity, precedent be damned. You are essentially describing the court of public opinion, which is governed by deeper rules that are hardwired into our social brains.

hk__2 4y ago

I don't want to sound dismissive, but that's the naive answer. Transparency may make it easier to understand for the 95% easy cases, but doesn't help for the rest and may even be counterproductive. Think about shadow-banning (even HN does it): it's very effective because it's based on the absence of transparency. Sometimes people do bad stuff and you don't want to tell them everything you know on the case because it may tip them about who reported these things (think about harassment/doxxing cases) or how you investigated it and so help them change their strategy next time (think about spam issues).