3 ms·

Moderation is fine, but what about secret moderation? The issue here is that users are being shown their removed comments as if they are publicly visible. I sha

by rhaksw 4y ago

Moderation is fine, but what about secret moderation? The issue here is that users are being shown their removed comments as if they are publicly visible. I share my thoughts on the impact at 19:54 [1] in the video linked in this post. > So at that time you have a choice: either you moderate, in order to keep the channel on-topic, or you accept everything, at which point the guys who benefit from science not being available to the general public have won. There is another way to view this. I think there is a message in all of that hate speech you see. I'll paraphrase how I perceive it: "I don't see why this is wrong, and I'm frustrated that nobody will debate me about this issue from where I stand, so I'll get angrier and angrier until I get someone's attention." We could debate over whether this is reasonable, but personally I find it harder and harder to see the merits in the secretive removal of any content. We do need mods to curate according to group rules and the law. I also think the removals should be reviewable at least by the author of the content. [1] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=1194 https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=1194

otikik 4y ago
If moderation isn’t silent then r/silence becomes “r/hey why has my comment been moderated, this is bullshit”. Same result as not moderating - The conversation about science gets diluted by the noise people lacking the basic skill level make.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > If moderation isn’t silent then r/silence becomes “r/hey why has my comment been moderated, this is bullshit”. Same result as not moderating - The conversation about science gets diluted by the noise people lacking the basic skill level make. That's a myth. Discourse tells me when my content is moderated. Plenty of forums have worked this way by default without being overwhelmed by spam. The widespread use of secret removals is unique to the social media era. It may have even helped create today's social media monopolies. There is another harmful effect. The more you secretly remove toxic users' commentary from view, the less signal they get that their views are not approved. In fact, removing them from view makes society worse off since you're also taking away agency from other users who could be preparing counter arguments. Then, when these two disconnected groups meet in the real world, there's a shouting match (or worse) because they never had to deal with those arguments before. What's more, extremists in otherwise upstanding groups won't realize they're being censored. They may, as a result, think they're of the same mind since their extreme viewpoints were not challenged (as they would be in the real world). By the time they act in the real world, they're far removed from reality. Secretly removing commentary is different from just ignoring someone in the real world. IRL if you ignore someone, they know you've ignored them. Online if you "ignore" them by secretly removing their comments, they don't know they've been ignored, and thousands or millions of other users don't know that that line of argument even existed as a thought in someone else's mind. It's incomprehensible to them. It's sad that hundreds of thousands of online moderators think they're helping society by secretly removing such commentary, while in doing so they may actually be creating the environment they seek to avoid. Everyone is trying to create pristine corners online, and it ends up covering the whole map. Meanwhile the real world goes down the drain. Many of us spend too much time using systems whose operations we aren't reviewing. Every day more people are becoming aware of the importance of transparency, and I think at this point the only question is when and to what degree it comes about.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > The more you secretly remove toxic users' commentary from view, the less signal they get that their views are not approved. And related: the more secrecy about removals, the less signal that favored users get that their opinions were published because the mods approved of them. If you mod away 75% of posts: a) the remaining 25% see the 75% as opinions nobody has, and the debate looks like a reasonable 15% vs a radical 5% on one side and another radical 5% on the other side. The vigorous debate among a small minority gives the illusion of a free space, even if it's e.g. people debating how much should be spent on the King's new crown, while the people saying that there shouldn't be a King, or even that the King shouldn't have a new crown have been modded away. And b) the 25%, seeing the vigorous debate about the cost of the King's new crown (and not the debate about the King or the crown themselves), don't understand why having the King as a mod could have a chilling effect on speech.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      > the more secrecy about removals, the less signal that favored users get that their opinions were published because the mods approved of them That's deep. I hadn't thought about what happens to the ego of users whose content is approved. One lie in the chain really does screw up everything. > b) the 25%, seeing the vigorous debate about the cost of the King's new crown (and not the debate about the King or the crown themselves), don't understand why having the King as a mod could have a chilling effect on speech. You're right, it's like a newly manufactured Overton window that can be adjusted on a per-group basis. A simpler term is brainwashing but I think you do need to spell it out as you do here. This is good stuff, I can use these principles to tell stories using real examples and make what's happening more relatable. Or you or anyone else could too.
pessimizer 4y ago
> "I don't see why this is wrong, and I'm frustrated that nobody will debate me about this issue from where I stand, so I'll get angrier and angrier until I get someone's attention." This is a very succinct and insightful way of putting it. It's fine to refuse to engage with people who are refusing to engage with you in good faith (i.e. they won't respond to the arguments you're making with anything but a repetition of their own arguments.) However, assuming bad faith of everyone who has a different opinion than you, even an obviously bad opinion, just hardens their belief in that opinion. It also makes you the one who is refusing to engage (in good faith or bad.) People know from their daily lives that when people refuse to engage, it's either because they're afraid their answer will anger you, or because they're afraid that they won't be able to defend it. When you refuse to engage with a bleach-drinker, and you're clearly not worried about angering them, they reasonably assume that you can't confidently tell them why they shouldn't drink bleach.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  Yeah, I'd say another thing is to be aware that some might like to troll and steal your attention in order to distract. And to be like, okay, you got me haha, and just move on. For example, the reply to me in this thread [1] is not the author that I originally replied to, and their comments are nonsensical, so I just considered them a troll and went to check for other replies. I'll give someone a chance to make their case more clearly, but if they don't make any attempt at reading and responding to what I wrote, it's not worth it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480818

by rhaksw 4y ago

otikik 4y ago

If moderation isn’t silent then r/silence becomes “r/hey why has my comment been moderated, this is bullshit”. Same result as not moderating - The conversation about science gets diluted by the noise people lacking the basic skill level make.

rhaksw 4y ago
> If moderation isn’t silent then r/silence becomes “r/hey why has my comment been moderated, this is bullshit”. Same result as not moderating - The conversation about science gets diluted by the noise people lacking the basic skill level make. That's a myth. Discourse tells me when my content is moderated. Plenty of forums have worked this way by default without being overwhelmed by spam. The widespread use of secret removals is unique to the social media era. It may have even helped create today's social media monopolies. There is another harmful effect. The more you secretly remove toxic users' commentary from view, the less signal they get that their views are not approved. In fact, removing them from view makes society worse off since you're also taking away agency from other users who could be preparing counter arguments. Then, when these two disconnected groups meet in the real world, there's a shouting match (or worse) because they never had to deal with those arguments before. What's more, extremists in otherwise upstanding groups won't realize they're being censored. They may, as a result, think they're of the same mind since their extreme viewpoints were not challenged (as they would be in the real world). By the time they act in the real world, they're far removed from reality. Secretly removing commentary is different from just ignoring someone in the real world. IRL if you ignore someone, they know you've ignored them. Online if you "ignore" them by secretly removing their comments, they don't know they've been ignored, and thousands or millions of other users don't know that that line of argument even existed as a thought in someone else's mind. It's incomprehensible to them. It's sad that hundreds of thousands of online moderators think they're helping society by secretly removing such commentary, while in doing so they may actually be creating the environment they seek to avoid. Everyone is trying to create pristine corners online, and it ends up covering the whole map. Meanwhile the real world goes down the drain. Many of us spend too much time using systems whose operations we aren't reviewing. Every day more people are becoming aware of the importance of transparency, and I think at this point the only question is when and to what degree it comes about.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > The more you secretly remove toxic users' commentary from view, the less signal they get that their views are not approved. And related: the more secrecy about removals, the less signal that favored users get that their opinions were published because the mods approved of them. If you mod away 75% of posts: a) the remaining 25% see the 75% as opinions nobody has, and the debate looks like a reasonable 15% vs a radical 5% on one side and another radical 5% on the other side. The vigorous debate among a small minority gives the illusion of a free space, even if it's e.g. people debating how much should be spent on the King's new crown, while the people saying that there shouldn't be a King, or even that the King shouldn't have a new crown have been modded away. And b) the 25%, seeing the vigorous debate about the cost of the King's new crown (and not the debate about the King or the crown themselves), don't understand why having the King as a mod could have a chilling effect on speech.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    > the more secrecy about removals, the less signal that favored users get that their opinions were published because the mods approved of them That's deep. I hadn't thought about what happens to the ego of users whose content is approved. One lie in the chain really does screw up everything. > b) the 25%, seeing the vigorous debate about the cost of the King's new crown (and not the debate about the King or the crown themselves), don't understand why having the King as a mod could have a chilling effect on speech. You're right, it's like a newly manufactured Overton window that can be adjusted on a per-group basis. A simpler term is brainwashing but I think you do need to spell it out as you do here. This is good stuff, I can use these principles to tell stories using real examples and make what's happening more relatable. Or you or anyone else could too.

pessimizer 4y ago

> "I don't see why this is wrong, and I'm frustrated that nobody will debate me about this issue from where I stand, so I'll get angrier and angrier until I get someone's attention." This is a very succinct and insightful way of putting it. It's fine to refuse to engage with people who are refusing to engage with you in good faith (i.e. they won't respond to the arguments you're making with anything but a repetition of their own arguments.) However, assuming bad faith of everyone who has a different opinion than you, even an obviously bad opinion, just hardens their belief in that opinion. It also makes you the one who is refusing to engage (in good faith or bad.) People know from their daily lives that when people refuse to engage, it's either because they're afraid their answer will anger you, or because they're afraid that they won't be able to defend it. When you refuse to engage with a bleach-drinker, and you're clearly not worried about angering them, they reasonably assume that you can't confidently tell them why they shouldn't drink bleach.

rhaksw 4y ago
Yeah, I'd say another thing is to be aware that some might like to troll and steal your attention in order to distract. And to be like, okay, you got me haha, and just move on. For example, the reply to me in this thread [1] is not the author that I originally replied to, and their comments are nonsensical, so I just considered them a troll and went to check for other replies. I'll give someone a chance to make their case more clearly, but if they don't make any attempt at reading and responding to what I wrote, it's not worth it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33480818