3 ms·

I think moderation should be modeled by following / subscribing to different censors (taggers / flaggers). Then you can mix and match as you see fit. For examp

I think moderation should be modeled by following / subscribing to different censors (taggers / flaggers). Then you can mix and match as you see fit. For example: - Blacklist using censor X for nsfw content with anything above level 3. - Blacklist using censor Y for political content to filter any ad hominem - Blacklist using censor Z on scientific studies and information to filter anything with small sample size or that’s politicized Obviously rather complicated, but this is what I want. A censor doesn’t have to be an org, it could be a person or a network of people you trust / follow. Yes bubbles will form. That’s fine, that’s our right to join and filter on a bubble. Each bubble will exhibit different behaviors, and much like nature the fittest will rise and “survive”.

SoftTalker 4y ago
What is the motivation to be a censor? Is it something that content consumers would pay for? Or would you monitize it by injecting your own ads based on the users expressed filter preferences?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  This is the problem reddit is facing, and I think for anything at scale paying people is the only way forward. The amount of work required just goes way beyond checking some posts here and then towards the day, and distributing the load towards a huge community of moderators would give other issues on consistency, internal battles and keeping up to date on changes. To note the people getting paid don’t need to be employed by the platform, I’d totally see a community crowdfund a moderator to tag for them specific content.
- fmajid 4y ago
  Many people love the feeling of power they get from telling other people how to behave.
bsder 4y ago
The problem isn't moderation. It's monopoly. If there were 5 Twitters all competing against one another, they would have to have customer service since you could move to another company. The companies would actually allocate the necessary resources and that would dampen the worst excesses. Until somebody (US, EU, etc.) gets serious and starts busting up these companies that rely on "network effect", this will all continue.
- krapp 4y ago
  Users are not Twitter's customers, they are their product. Customers get service by paying for it.
thomascgalvin 4y ago
There are two big reasons for content moderation: to grow (or at least maintain) the userbase, and to protect the investors who own the platform. Your idea would work wonderfully for the first point, assuming you had enough censors devoting enough time to the social networks you care about. If this scheme was adopted, people would be able to craft the perfect echo chamber, seeing only what they want to see, being exposed only to the ideas they want to think about. It would be the current algorithms on steroids. But it would totally fail for the second point. When $social_media_empire deplatforms someone calling for violence against the Jews, it's not (entirely) out of altruism, it's because their investors don't want to see headlines declaring $social_media_empire as the home of violent, holocaust-denying sociopaths. It's not enough to hide $antisocial_behvior from people that don't want to encounter it, it's important to the platform that the platform not be seen as a home for that type of content. So, at some point, it becomes necessary to hide content even from the people who want to see it.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  You are right, but I think weighting too much on the extreme. Inciting violence or holocaust denying is outside the spectrum of what can be accepted on any moderation platform (outside of the sheer legal issues, also for the reasons you are citing). Some people want those kind of speeches represented as well, but it just won’t happen, at least not on any platform with public and international exposure. With anything illegal off the table, sthe debate is more on how to deal with things ranging from flat earthers, hate on fat, furries, sex, anti-capitalism, hyper-capitalism, bigotry, grifting, crypto bros etc In that “somewhat legal but possibily be deeply disturbing or unwelcoming from some” fringe, advertisers will also gain from being allowed to filter on what moderation strategies people are choosing. Basically it gives them ways to dictate specific rules for their content (e.g a diet product could be fine being advertised next to sex and fat-hate but want nothing to do with crypto-bros, etc.)
pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Yeah basically like a subscribe to curator list. It can be pub/sub based content and content filters. I think important to still visibly surface other echo chambers but allow oneself to opt in.
FrontierPsych 4y ago
the problem is that the censors themselves are political and judge different things differently. For example, I've seen many ad hominem attacks on one group of people but do the exact same thing to another more "popular" and "in" group and you get ban-hammered. You can't really trust anyone. Unless you want biased content - if that is the case, then censor away and be happy in the bubble.

SoftTalker 4y ago

What is the motivation to be a censor? Is it something that content consumers would pay for? Or would you monitize it by injecting your own ads based on the users expressed filter preferences?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 4y ago
This is the problem reddit is facing, and I think for anything at scale paying people is the only way forward. The amount of work required just goes way beyond checking some posts here and then towards the day, and distributing the load towards a huge community of moderators would give other issues on consistency, internal battles and keeping up to date on changes. To note the people getting paid don’t need to be employed by the platform, I’d totally see a community crowdfund a moderator to tag for them specific content.
fmajid 4y ago
Many people love the feeling of power they get from telling other people how to behave.

bsder 4y ago

The problem isn't moderation. It's monopoly. If there were 5 Twitters all competing against one another, they would have to have customer service since you could move to another company. The companies would actually allocate the necessary resources and that would dampen the worst excesses. Until somebody (US, EU, etc.) gets serious and starts busting up these companies that rely on "network effect", this will all continue.

krapp 4y ago
Users are not Twitter's customers, they are their product. Customers get service by paying for it.

thomascgalvin 4y ago

There are two big reasons for content moderation: to grow (or at least maintain) the userbase, and to protect the investors who own the platform. Your idea would work wonderfully for the first point, assuming you had enough censors devoting enough time to the social networks you care about. If this scheme was adopted, people would be able to craft the perfect echo chamber, seeing only what they want to see, being exposed only to the ideas they want to think about. It would be the current algorithms on steroids. But it would totally fail for the second point. When $social_media_empire deplatforms someone calling for violence against the Jews, it's not (entirely) out of altruism, it's because their investors don't want to see headlines declaring $social_media_empire as the home of violent, holocaust-denying sociopaths. It's not enough to hide $antisocial_behvior from people that don't want to encounter it, it's important to the platform that the platform not be seen as a home for that type of content. So, at some point, it becomes necessary to hide content even from the people who want to see it.

makeitdouble 4y ago
You are right, but I think weighting too much on the extreme. Inciting violence or holocaust denying is outside the spectrum of what can be accepted on any moderation platform (outside of the sheer legal issues, also for the reasons you are citing). Some people want those kind of speeches represented as well, but it just won’t happen, at least not on any platform with public and international exposure. With anything illegal off the table, sthe debate is more on how to deal with things ranging from flat earthers, hate on fat, furries, sex, anti-capitalism, hyper-capitalism, bigotry, grifting, crypto bros etc In that “somewhat legal but possibily be deeply disturbing or unwelcoming from some” fringe, advertisers will also gain from being allowed to filter on what moderation strategies people are choosing. Basically it gives them ways to dictate specific rules for their content (e.g a diet product could be fine being advertised next to sex and fat-hate but want nothing to do with crypto-bros, etc.)

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

Yeah basically like a subscribe to curator list. It can be pub/sub based content and content filters. I think important to still visibly surface other echo chambers but allow oneself to opt in.

FrontierPsych 4y ago

the problem is that the censors themselves are political and judge different things differently. For example, I've seen many ad hominem attacks on one group of people but do the exact same thing to another more "popular" and "in" group and you get ban-hammered. You can't really trust anyone. Unless you want biased content - if that is the case, then censor away and be happy in the bubble.