4 ms·

A fun idea that I'm certain no one has considered with any level of seriousness: don't moderate anything. Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate

A fun idea that I'm certain no one has considered with any level of seriousness: don't moderate anything. Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate and make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc). The "pay to play" idea will eliminate an insane amount of the junk, too. Any free network is inherently going to have problems of chaos. Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias. As for advertisers (why any moderation is necessary in the first place beyond totalitarian thought control): have different tiers of quality. If you want a higher quality audience, pay more. If you're more concerned about broad reach (even if that means getting junk users), pay less. Beyond that, advertisers/brands should set their expectations closer to reality: randomly appearing alongside some tasteless stuff on Twitter does not mean you're vouching for those ideas.

lambic 4y ago
It's a problem of scale. Usenet and IRC used to be self-moderated. The mods in each group or channel would moderate their own userbase, ban people who were causing problems, step in if things were getting too heated. At a broader level net admins dealt with the spam problem system wide, coordinating in groups in the news.admin hierarchy or similar channels in IRC. This worked fine for many years, but then the internet got big. Those volunteer moderators and administrators could no longer keep up with the flood of content. Usenet died (yes, it's still around, but it's dead as any kind of discussion forum) and IRC is a shell of its former self.
- rglover 4y ago
  Right, which is solved by the pay to play limits. This would essentially cut the problem off immediately and it would be of benefit to everyone. If it actually cost people to "do bad stuff" (post spam, vitriol, etc), they're far less-likely to do it as the incentives drop off. The dragon folks seem to be chasing is that Twitter should be free but perfect (which is a have your cake and eat it too problem). That will never happen and it only invites more unnecessary strife between sociopolitical and socioeconomic factions as they battle for narrative control.
munificent 4y ago
> Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate This is effectively impossible because of the bullshit asymmetry principle[1]. It's easier to create content that needs moderation than it is to moderate it. In general, there is a fundamental asymmetry to life that it takes less effort to destroy than it does to create, less work to harm than heal. With a slightly sharpened piece of metal and about a newton of force, you can end a life. No amount of effort can resurrect it. It simply doesn't scale to let bad actors cause all the harm they want and rely on good actors to clean up their messes after the fact. The harm must be prevented before it does damage. > make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc). The simplest approach would be no API at all, but that won't stop scammers and bad actors. It's effectively impossible to prohibit screen scrapers. > Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias. This is, I think, the best idea. If having an identity and sharing content costs actual money, you can at least make spamming not be cost effective. But that still doesn't eliminate human bad actors griefing others. Some are happy to pay to cause mayhem. There is no simple technical solution here. Fundamentally, the value proposition of a community is the other good people you get to connect to. But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. For a community to thrive, you've got to encourage the good behaviors and police the bad ones. That takes work and human judgement. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- rglover 4y ago
  > But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. This is a fundamental reality of life that cannot be avoided. There is no magical solution (technical or otherwise) to prevent this. At best, you can put in some basic safeguards (like what you/I have stated above) but ultimately people need to learn to accept that you can't make everything 100% safe. Also, things like muting/blocking work but the ugly truth is that people love the negative excitement of fighting online (it's an outlet for life's pressure/disappointments). Accepting that reality would do a lot of people a lot of good. A staggering amount of the negativity one encounters on social media is self-inflicted by either provoking or engaging with being provoked.
etchalon 4y ago
1. There are plenty of places online that "don't moderate anything". In fact, nearly all of the social networks started off that way. The end result is … well, 4Chan. 2. "Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work. User's don't want to have constantly police their feeds and block people, topics, sites, etc. It's also work that never ends. Bad actors jump from one identity to the next. There are no "static" identifiers that are reliable enough for a user to trust. 3. Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with. And they're also not interested in spending time white-listing specific accounts they "know" are good.
- rglover 4y ago
  > The end result is … well, 4Chan. And? Your opinion of whether that's bad is subjective, yet the people there are happy with the result (presumably, as they keep using/visiting it). > Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work. So in other words: "I'm too lazy to curate a non-threatening experience for myself which is my responsibility because the offense being taken is my own." Whether or not you're willing to filter things out that upset you is a personal problem, not a platform problem. > Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with. It's not. Twitter isn't creating the content nor are they financing the content (e.g. like a Netflix type model). It's user-generated which is completely random and subject to chaos. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't advertise there (hence why a pay-to-play option is best as it prevents a revenue collapse for Twitter). E.g., if I I'm selling crucifixes, I'm not going to advertise on slutmania.com --- Ultimately, people need to quit acting like everything they come into contact with needs to be respectful of every possible issue or disagreement they have with it. It's irrational, entitled, and childish.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    1. I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. 2. It's a platform problem. If you make users do work they don't want to do in order to make the platform pleasant to use, they won't do the work, the platform will not be pleasant to use, and they'll use a different platform that doesn't make them do that work. 3. "If they can't handle it, they shouldn't advertise there." Correct! They won't advertise there. That's the point. There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms, and those platforms are niche, with small audiences, filled with low-tier/scam ads and are generally not profitable.

lambic 4y ago

It's a problem of scale. Usenet and IRC used to be self-moderated. The mods in each group or channel would moderate their own userbase, ban people who were causing problems, step in if things were getting too heated. At a broader level net admins dealt with the spam problem system wide, coordinating in groups in the news.admin hierarchy or similar channels in IRC. This worked fine for many years, but then the internet got big. Those volunteer moderators and administrators could no longer keep up with the flood of content. Usenet died (yes, it's still around, but it's dead as any kind of discussion forum) and IRC is a shell of its former self.

rglover 4y ago
Right, which is solved by the pay to play limits. This would essentially cut the problem off immediately and it would be of benefit to everyone. If it actually cost people to "do bad stuff" (post spam, vitriol, etc), they're far less-likely to do it as the incentives drop off. The dragon folks seem to be chasing is that Twitter should be free but perfect (which is a have your cake and eat it too problem). That will never happen and it only invites more unnecessary strife between sociopolitical and socioeconomic factions as they battle for narrative control.

munificent 4y ago

> Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate This is effectively impossible because of the bullshit asymmetry principle[1]. It's easier to create content that needs moderation than it is to moderate it. In general, there is a fundamental asymmetry to life that it takes less effort to destroy than it does to create, less work to harm than heal. With a slightly sharpened piece of metal and about a newton of force, you can end a life. No amount of effort can resurrect it. It simply doesn't scale to let bad actors cause all the harm they want and rely on good actors to clean up their messes after the fact. The harm must be prevented before it does damage. > make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc). The simplest approach would be no API at all, but that won't stop scammers and bad actors. It's effectively impossible to prohibit screen scrapers. > Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias. This is, I think, the best idea. If having an identity and sharing content costs actual money, you can at least make spamming not be cost effective. But that still doesn't eliminate human bad actors griefing others. Some are happy to pay to cause mayhem. There is no simple technical solution here. Fundamentally, the value proposition of a community is the other good people you get to connect to. But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. For a community to thrive, you've got to encourage the good behaviors and police the bad ones. That takes work and human judgement. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

rglover 4y ago
> But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. This is a fundamental reality of life that cannot be avoided. There is no magical solution (technical or otherwise) to prevent this. At best, you can put in some basic safeguards (like what you/I have stated above) but ultimately people need to learn to accept that you can't make everything 100% safe. Also, things like muting/blocking work but the ugly truth is that people love the negative excitement of fighting online (it's an outlet for life's pressure/disappointments). Accepting that reality would do a lot of people a lot of good. A staggering amount of the negativity one encounters on social media is self-inflicted by either provoking or engaging with being provoked.

etchalon 4y ago

1. There are plenty of places online that "don't moderate anything". In fact, nearly all of the social networks started off that way. The end result is … well, 4Chan. 2. "Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work. User's don't want to have constantly police their feeds and block people, topics, sites, etc. It's also work that never ends. Bad actors jump from one identity to the next. There are no "static" identifiers that are reliable enough for a user to trust. 3. Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with. And they're also not interested in spending time white-listing specific accounts they "know" are good.

rglover 4y ago
> The end result is … well, 4Chan. And? Your opinion of whether that's bad is subjective, yet the people there are happy with the result (presumably, as they keep using/visiting it). > Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work. So in other words: "I'm too lazy to curate a non-threatening experience for myself which is my responsibility because the offense being taken is my own." Whether or not you're willing to filter things out that upset you is a personal problem, not a platform problem. > Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with. It's not. Twitter isn't creating the content nor are they financing the content (e.g. like a Netflix type model). It's user-generated which is completely random and subject to chaos. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't advertise there (hence why a pay-to-play option is best as it prevents a revenue collapse for Twitter). E.g., if I I'm selling crucifixes, I'm not going to advertise on slutmania.com --- Ultimately, people need to quit acting like everything they come into contact with needs to be respectful of every possible issue or disagreement they have with it. It's irrational, entitled, and childish.
- etchalon 4y ago
  1. I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. 2. It's a platform problem. If you make users do work they don't want to do in order to make the platform pleasant to use, they won't do the work, the platform will not be pleasant to use, and they'll use a different platform that doesn't make them do that work. 3. "If they can't handle it, they shouldn't advertise there." Correct! They won't advertise there. That's the point. There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms, and those platforms are niche, with small audiences, filled with low-tier/scam ads and are generally not profitable.