4 ms·

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,

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.
  - rglover 4y ago
    > I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. A product exists with those properties, but not something like Twitter. > It's a platform problem. It's not. I don't use stuff like 4chan because it's not of interest to me but it is of interest to others. There's zero requirement for Twitter to be a universally acceptable platform (that delusion is why there continues to be issues around moderation), just like 4chan needn't cater to everyone. > There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms Right. And there's no requirement for Twitter to offer advertising. That's why I think it'd be wise for them to adopt a pay-to-play model instead of chasing that rabbit.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      You seem to be demanding that Twitter adopt policies and features despite the fact the market has shown those policies and features will shrink their user base and their profit. "Pay-to-play Twitter" was already tried. It was called "App.net" and it was a failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net
      - rglover 4y ago
        Demanding? No. I think it's a smart business decision and removes a ton of overhead and stress. And no, App.net was Dalton Caldwell's halfhearted attempt (the UI was okay at best) after Twitter already had the network effect in motion (six years after Twitter launched).
        etchalon 4y ago
        There are no successful "pay for access" social media networks, and the argument that Twitter's dominance some how held App.net back ignores all the other social networks that succeeded despite being founded after Twitter.
        4y ago

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.
- rglover 4y ago
  > I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists. A product exists with those properties, but not something like Twitter. > It's a platform problem. It's not. I don't use stuff like 4chan because it's not of interest to me but it is of interest to others. There's zero requirement for Twitter to be a universally acceptable platform (that delusion is why there continues to be issues around moderation), just like 4chan needn't cater to everyone. > There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms Right. And there's no requirement for Twitter to offer advertising. That's why I think it'd be wise for them to adopt a pay-to-play model instead of chasing that rabbit.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    You seem to be demanding that Twitter adopt policies and features despite the fact the market has shown those policies and features will shrink their user base and their profit. "Pay-to-play Twitter" was already tried. It was called "App.net" and it was a failure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App.net
    - rglover 4y ago
      Demanding? No. I think it's a smart business decision and removes a ton of overhead and stress. And no, App.net was Dalton Caldwell's halfhearted attempt (the UI was okay at best) after Twitter already had the network effect in motion (six years after Twitter launched).
      - etchalon 4y ago
        There are no successful "pay for access" social media networks, and the argument that Twitter's dominance some how held App.net back ignores all the other social networks that succeeded despite being founded after Twitter.
        4y ago