8 ms·
As I've said for a long time, I don't mind moderation, I just want to be in charge of what I see. Give me the tools that the moderators have, let me be able to
by brigandish 4y ago
As I've said for a long time, I don't mind moderation, I just want to be in charge of what I see. Give me the tools that the moderators have, let me be able to filter out bots at some confidence level; let me see "removed" posts, banned accounts; don't mess with my searches unless I've asked for that explicitly.
Power to the people.
- cafeinux 4y agoSo, basically, you want moderation as it's described in the article. So, arguably, you mind about moderation as much as it's author, since that's their point.
- brigandish 4y agoI read the article and second it, but I want more than that, I want the tools the current moderators have, not just ones they provide me. If they give me a tool, I want it to be as powerful as their tool, not a compromise. If I'm to moderate my own feed then why do I not get the tools of a moderator?
- bergenty 4y agoI disagree. Comments with a certain tone set the mood for the entire forum generally leading to a poor overall use experience.
- Kinrany 4y agoIn tree-style conversations (Twitter, Reddit) they are contained to subtrees of already banned posts.
- andrewflnr 4y agoIs your concern answered by ensuring that the default experience of a forum is moderated, until someone explicitly takes off the covers? Otherwise I can't fathom where you disagree with GP.
- beebeepka 4y agoWhat does that mean? Comments with certain tone set the mood anyway. That's how it works in general. It's just you'd prefer "certain" moods over others
- goodpoint 4y ago> It's just you'd prefer "certain" moods over others Don't trivialize it as some personal preference around moods. It's much more than that. Stuff like death threats, doxxing, child porn, harassment are not just "moods you don't like".
- beebeepka 4y agoSure. I am simply opposing the use "certain". The way it's written, it could mean literally anything
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoSounds like things for the legal system to handle.
- the8472 4y ago> the entire forum That is the wrong view on a global communication platform. It's like saying "a certain tone sets the mood for the entire telephone system". These things should be seen more as silos, subcultures or whatever. Unless you expose yourself to the firehose of globally popular content.
- mmastrac 4y agoTelephones are 1:1, forums are 1:many.
- the8472 4y agoThen pick a different medium. A single tabloid doesn't tarnish every single news industry. Rude mailing lists don't invalidate private email conversations. Also, conference calls are a thing. Anyway, analogies are imperfect, please look in the direction where I am gesturing, not at my exact words. The point here (and of the entire conversation) is that you shouldn't judge a medium by its worst imaginable actors as long as you're given the right tools that allow you to use that medium undisturbed, effectively putting them into a different silo. Today twitter allows a very crude, imperfect approximation of this by following people that post decent content and setting the homepage to "latest posts" instead of "top tweets". Ideally we'd have better tools than that.
- otterley 4y agoBut the thing is, there's no "outrage Twitter" that's distinct from "calm Twitter." There's just Twitter. Since the value of a social network is in its population, the natural inclination will be towards a reduction of networks, not a proliferation of them.
- brigandish 4y agoIf you don't see those comments then how could they set a tone?
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago
- baxtr 4y agoLove the idea. Not sure if I understand though. So you want a moderator to moderate. but then you also want to have tools to see what has been moderated away and unlock those? Right? So moderate yes, but also unmoderate by the users. Power to the people!
- phpisthebest 4y agoI would say something more akin to SPAM scoring would be good. Contextual filters/scanners would score a piece of content, give it a "score" based on what ever categorizations are being filtered (NSFW, Non-Inclusive Lang, Slurs, Disinfo, etc) Then both the creator and the consumer should be able to see the score in transparent manner, with the consumer being able to set a threshold to filter out any post that is higher then what they choose Free Speech Absolutist could set it to 0, Default could be 50, and go from there
- brigandish 4y agoI agree, this is the only part I'm doubtful upon whether I can see an individual's score, as it might create a prejudice against that individual that is felt by that individual ("I see you're a bot/troll/like hate speech…"). It also makes me wonder if individual centralised mods should be able to see more than that, but I digress. Scores across a range of measures would be best, in my view.
- friendlyHornet 4y agoI don't know if this is what OP meant, but I really like your interpretation Mods exist and can ban/lock/block people and content but users can see everything that was banned, removed or locked, as well as the reason why; what policy did the user violate? I think the only exception would be actually illegal content; that should be removed entirely, but maybe keep a note from the mods in its place stating "illegal content". That way users can actually scrutinise what the mods do and one doesn't wonder whether or not the mods removed a post because they are biased or for ligit reasons, and opinions are not entirely removed, as they are still readable, but you can't respond to them
- goodpoint 4y agoYes! It's surprising that federated networks don't do moderation / antispam using tagging/voting and user-managed filters.
- reitanqild 4y agoMastodon decided to go the guilt-by-assiciation route instead: Instead of just leaving it to users or admins to block users or servers they didn’t want to deal with, a large subset decided to block for anyone who didn’t block certain other servers.
- goodpoint 4y agoWhich still makes sense, a lot.
- neonate 4y ago> let me see "removed" posts, banned accounts This is what HN does with "showdead".
- fazfq 4y agoYou can't reply to dead comments, effectively killing the conversation, so no, it's not the same thing.
- Kye 4y agoThat's what the vouch link on the comment page is for.
- fazfq 4y agoVouching for a comment makes it visible for everyone else. That means that dang reviews whether the comment breaks the rules and if it does he'll take away your ability to vouch in the future. Therefore, vouching is not a way to continue commenting on a sub-thread that breaks the rules.
- swayvil 4y agoThere's "breaking the rules" and then there's "breaking the rules according to a certain interpretation" and then there's "I don't like what he said, so I'm going to interpret the rules in a way that justifies removing his post". It all comes down to some guy telling me how to talk. I don't like it. Anybody who likes it has rocks in his head.
- dalbasal 4y agoI agree with the spirit, but I think we have to consider the structure. >> Give me the tools that the moderators have Whatever tools a site like twitter or youtube gives you, (A) most people will never use them and (B) they still control how the tools work. These two are enough to achieve any censorship goal you might have, and enough to make censorship inevitable. I don't think we get power to the people while Alphabet/Elon/Whatnot own the platform. It's a shame that FOSS failed on these fronts. But, the internet has produced powerful proofs of concept. The WWW itself, for the first 20 years. Wikipedia. Linux/gnu. Those really did give power to the people, and you can see how much better they were at dealing with censorship, disinformation and other 2020s infopolitics.
- pjc50 4y agoWikipedia is a terrible example for the "zero censorship" crowd because stuff gets deleted or locked all the time. It's an example of how you can produce something useful despite a raging ideological battleground over all sorts of topics.
- dalbasal 4y agoI didn't say "zero censorship." I don't even know what that means for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia have a model for user generated content. It's much more resilient, open, unbiased and successful than social media. This isn't because they have some super nuanced, single-us distinction between moderation and censorship. They never really needed to split that hair. They have a model for collaboratively editing an encyclopedia, including lots of details and special cases that deal with disagreement, discontent and ideological battlegrounds. They also have a different organisational and power structure. Wikipedia doesn't exist to sell ads, or some other purpose above the creation of an encyclopedia. Users/editors have a lot of power. Things happen in the open. Between those two, they've done much better than Alphabet/FB/Twitter/etc. Wikipedia is the ultimate prize for censorship, narrative wars, disinformation, campaigning, activism and such. Despite this, and despite far fewer resources it outperforms the commercial platforms. I don't think it's a coincidence.
- 4y ago
- moffkalast 4y agoIf it's possible to train models that show people the exact ads they like, then I have absolutely no doubt one could do the same to only show the content you like. Learning from downvoted and reported posts, etc. On second thought.. I suppose that's Tiktok.
- swayvil 4y agoI'm of the same view. If moderation must be done then let me do it for myself. Give me the tools. A central moderating authority cannot be trusted at all.
- PaulHoule 4y agoI don't think that really deals with beheading videos, incitement to terrorism, campaigns to harass individuals and groups, child porn, and many cases where online communities document or facilitate crimes elsewhere.
- brigandish 4y agoChild porn is illegal. Are beheading videos illegal? Incitement to terrorism is probably a crime (though I'd argue that it should be looked at under the imminent lawless action test[1] as it's speech). So all of these would be removed and are not part of a moderation discussion. As to "many cases where online communities document or facilitate crimes elsewhere", why criminalise the speech if the action is already criminalised? That leaves only "Campaigns to harass individuals and groups". Why wouldn't moderation tools as powerful as the ones employed by Twitter's own moderators deal with that? [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i...
- PaulHoule 4y agoIt's the "documentation of the crime" aspect of child pornography that makes it illegal. It is still technically illegal in parts of the US to possess, say, drawn illustrations of pornography featuring minors (what 日本人 call "lolicon") but the legal precedents are such that it can't really be prosecuted. That is, it's not clear in the US you can ban something on the basis of it being immoral, you need to have the justification that it is "documentation of a crime".