7 ms·
> * The key mechanism that makes Radiopaper different from other social networks, and more resistant to trolling and abuse, is that messages are not published u
by alimov 4y ago
> * The key mechanism that makes Radiopaper different from other social networks, and more resistant to trolling and abuse, is that messages are not published until the counterparty replies or accepts your comment.
.
Does this mean if someone doesn’t agree with your comment they can ignore it entirely, and nobody else in the conversation will ever know the comment was made? If that’s the case then wouldn’t it be possible to manufacture a sense of agreement (in the thread) by dismissing all unfavorable comments?
Edit: Also if enough people of the same ideological leaning (or an army of bots) did this and engaged only with themselves, it could give the illusion that the general sentiment of users of your service is aligned in some belief or system of ideals or w.e?
Idk, maybe I’m just spewing nonsense.. I like the overall idea and I wish your team the best of luck.
- LightHugger 4y agoI can't believe this would be described as a selling point. Negative replies are necessary for the usefulness of any community. Unless the intent is just to maximally echo chamber the network, protect con artists from unfavorable replies and so on. Until someone takes a screenshot of your post, and posts their reply as a new root, and the point has been defeated...
- alimov 4y agoI completely agree
- rectang 4y agoFrankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN, that I've been looking for an alternative for a long time. Innovation is desperately needed in this space. I've experienced a similar commenting system to RadioPaper in use on the Gawker properties, and it's not bad. It is siloed. But just because there's a single silo at HN doesn't mean everybody sticks around in that silo.
- alimov 4y ago> “Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN…” Would you care to elaborate? I am genuinely interested, in part because of curiosity and also because I haven’t experienced this personally.
- rectang 4y agoSee for example: https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-people-who-arent-men-5737bc3e68a https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-... That author advocates that HN stay how it is — or rather, she advocates changing it from within. But I don't think it's possible — I believe that the "assume good faith" proposition leads to toleration of unlimited low-grade hostility that does not rise above the threshold of flagging. The result is that outgroups flee the platform. Have you not noticed the gender imbalance around here? From what I can see it's pick your poison: * "Assume good faith" — outgroups don't participate. Exclusion may not be the intent, but it is the de facto result. * Siloed: outgroups can and will meaningfully participate, but debate is more constrained.
- gsinclair 4y agoI was interested but not particularly moved by that example.
- rectang 4y agoYeah, I'm not surprised. I mean, the ridiculous gender imbalance here doesn't bother a lot of those who have stayed. It's a vicious cycle — the people who it bothers leave, and since those are disproportionately women, the imbalance gets worse.
- sitkack 4y agoFWIW I agree with you. That this and your other post are both light gray kinda proves your point. Neither post ‘contribute nothing to the discussion’
- afro88 4y agoIt makes each thread owner a moderator, which is kind of nice. Just like forums and social networks, thread authors may gain a reputation for one sided echo chambers, or comprehensive and educational conversation. Radiopaper doesn't force you to censor other opinions, or encourage you to do so.
- alimov 4y agoI hadn’t considered the reputation bit. I do think of that is a mechanism that would come into play then it would only be knowable by people that are frequently engaging on the platform. Do you think this would pose issues for new users (assuming some threshold is of active users is met and there is a ton of conversations happening)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- DoItToMe81 4y agoI don't know how to phrase this without seeming rude, but this idea at its very core seems terrible and short lived. The only way I can possibly see this ending is with an aggressive echo chamber culture that drives off everyone else. I've seen forum cliques and mass blocking kill off many sites back in the day, and this design would empower this attitude in such a way that it could never be changed.
- javajosh 4y agoWhat do you mean "drive thru fast food"? Why would people want to do that, and not have a table and chairs, especially when the price is the same? Plus, what's to prevent someone from ordering and just driving away without paying? It would be almost impossible to catch them, after all. Why would anyone wait in line, with their car, burning gas and inhaling the fumes from the next car, right before ordering a meal? It's insanity, and will obviously never work.
- version_five 4y agoThis analogy doesn't work at all
- davidschaengold 4y agoSock-puppet bots are definitely a risk for us, as ordinary bots are for other sites. Our core mechanism is complemented by, and does not replace, the standard anti-spam, anti-bot techniques. Additionally, other users on Radiopaper will understand the mechanism. So, if they see a controversial post with 100% fawning replies, they're going to understand what's happening, and discount the credibility of those replies accordingly.
- jonahx 4y agoAn interesting feature would be to allow people to "disagree but show" for comments they disagreed with but considered at least thoughtful/civil/in good faith, and then combine that with user stats: When other comment on my posts: - % rejected - % disagreed but shown - % accepted When I comment: - % rejected - % disagreed but shown - % accepted This would incentivize openness and good faith conversation, and make abusers on either front (trolling or over-policing) instantly visible.
- davidschaengold 4y agoAn earlier iteration of the site actually had a set of reactions that included a 'disagree' option, with something like what you're proposing in mind. We ended up removing reactions from the product temporarily for the sake of simplicity, but hope to add them back in shortly. The full set was -Agree -Disagree -Interesting -Beautiful. We still use them internally. You can see what they look like here: https://twitter.com/DavidSchaengold/status/1520207545104846849 https://twitter.com/DavidSchaengold/status/15202075451048468...
- dane-pgp 4y agoIt would be nice if a moderation process allowed people to distinguish between comments which are "correct, but expressed poorly" and those which are deemed "incorrect, but expressed politely". The former comments would present an opportunity for someone to try to reword them (and possibly steelman them), while the latter would be a signal to the commenter that people disagreed but appreciated their good faith effort to engage constructively.
- Animats 4y agoAn approach where comments have to be seconded by someone else has been tried before. It doesn't work unless either 1) the community is small, or 2) you have some means of verifying the identity, or at least that it's a unique person, of the seconder. It's the usual spam problem. If people can generate identities cheaply, "who" based blocking will not work.
- tartakovsky 4y agoThe goal here seems to be twofold. On the one hand, to put the onus on the one receiving messages from the troll or heckler to either stay silent and not give them a voice, or respond and allow the world to see the negative comment. On the other hand, with respect to the troll responding to a comment, many trolls don't care if they're seen as such. And trolls aside, it seems that boring messages are less likely to receive a reply than ones that are more inflammatory or generally compelling. Is that true?
- Jarwain 4y agoWhat about a system where the unapproved comments are published, but mildly hidden/deprioritized? The idea being that if viewers can see what the OP doesn't approve of, they can make a judgment as to whether that OP is making good-faith arguments and accepting reasonable replies or whether they are just trying to build an echo chamber
- eric__cartman 4y agoReminds me of the "safe space" from South Park.
- sobkas 4y ago> > * The key mechanism that makes Radiopaper different from other social networks, and more resistant to trolling and abuse, is that messages are not published until the counterparty replies or accepts your comment. >Edit: Also if enough people of the same ideological leaning (or an army of bots) did this and engaged only with themselves, it could give the illusion that the general sentiment of users of your service is aligned in some belief or system of ideals or w.e? Idk, maybe I’m just spewing nonsense.. I like the overall idea and I wish your team the best of luck. It works like that in almos all cases where there is user voting system that can result in comment being invisible for other users. As one side gains momentum, it is for them easier and easier to block distending voices. After some time discussions start to look one sided and people that disagree just stop trying to engage. That feedback loop in the end turn such forum into an echo chamber(loaded term, but no side is free of it). Even more if moderators are on their side. But there are also counter examples. Cases where models/theories advocated by comments are so disjointed from reality, facts that there is nothing you can even disagree on. >>“The brain mistakes familiarity for truth,” van der Linden says. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-people-latch-on-to-conspiracy-theories-according-to-science https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-peopl... (this is one example, there are more that show this kind of problems for other ways of thinking) There was a study(https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.009 https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.009, https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-021-00006-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-021-00006-y) repeating pseudoscience, hoaxes even if done to debunk them, caused people to see them as more likely because they become more familiar with them(and forget why/where they learned about them). So when someone repeats them to propagate them, harm cab be even bigger. So there is argument for blocking harmful (in the end all of them end this way) misinformation to stop its effects on readers. But this approach is ripe for abuse, there is little stopping one from lumping into such category, theories/models one simply don't like/disagree with. In the end, this is one of the reasons why assessing if something is true is hard, even harder if you add Internet into the mix. In the end we are not perfect logical machines with same memory, we have flaws in our brains that can be used agnaist it, to persuade it into believing falsehoods.