3 ms·

"I upvoted wrong porn movie and I'm now in jail" is terrible dystopia you seem to want. All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclo

by ilyt 4y ago

"I upvoted wrong porn movie and I'm now in jail" is terrible dystopia you seem to want. All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal > There needs to be an incentive beyond the goodwill of site owners and users. The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like".

_8j50 4y ago
Prosecutors would have to prove you upvoted knowing it was "the wrong porn". > All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal And take it down? With that stipulation it is even more than what I said because best effort moderation is not neccesarily reporting to the government. Just bans and removal are best effort right? Once the content is taken down, I don't think there should be a reporting requirement unless a criminal law was broken. > The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Are you kidding? Users will flock specifically for shit and pay for it too. I won't even mention any of them I am sure you must know this. Filth is actually very profitable. Well meaning site operators and users should be protected but for everyone else there needs to be a moderation incentive. If I bully you on HN for example, what is the incentive to ban me other than the goodwill of moderators? What if they prefer to have as many users as possible even if they can't reasonably review every flagged post? My suggestion is to provise that incentive so that moderation happens not just when it is convenient for the site operator. Moderation is why you are not liable to begin with. > Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like". Not really, there are clear enough legal definition. Of course there is criminal law but in addition to that, whatever in state or federal law that is already defined as action or speech for which you can become liable, now the site owner also gets liable in addition to the original poster if and only if the site owner refuses to do moderation. So if "the thing I don't like" is something I can sue you for, I would need to win a suit against the original poster first and then sue the site owner for refusing to have moderation capabilities or not reviewing flagged posts and taking them down.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > Prosecutors would have to prove you upvoted knowing it was "the wrong porn". Why you want to prosecute people clicking the arrow button on the website IN THE FIRST PLACE? That's some 1984 shit right here. Prosecution for unlawfully liking a picture, wtf is this shit ? >> All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal >And take it down? With that stipulation it is even more than what I said because best effort moderation is not neccesarily reporting to the government. Just bans and removal are best effort right? Once the content is taken down, I don't think there should be a reporting requirement unless a criminal law was broken. If it is illegal it should be taken down, if it is not it should not. Sharing sextape without consent of the partner is illegal AFAIK, offender gets reported and court/police orders site to take it down. Moderation have NOTHING to do with it. >> The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. >Are you kidding? Users will flock specifically for shit and pay for it too. I I should elaborate on that. "It is not filled with shit they don't like". Sites like reddit give user a good chance to find a space where there is a lot of stuff they like and that's why they're being popular. There might be subreddit filled with everything you hate but you ain't getting it in suggestions by algorithm (as suggestions is not main front of reddit, unlike twitter/facebook) and you don't have to go there > If I bully you on HN for example, what is the incentive to ban me other than the goodwill of moderators? I mean... better written social media sites just have [Block] button where I can choose to not see given person's ramblings. But giving user the power to choose what they do or do not want to see seems to be passe. Altho to be fair twitter does have some features around it. But people want to decide what other people don't want to see so would rather bother moderators with false positives than to just mute the person they disagree with. It would actually be interesting to see stats on how many "bad because you were naughty" ends up in just that user creating new account, but that would be probably a very hard stat to get. > My suggestion is to provise that incentive so that moderation happens not just when it is convenient for the site operator. Your suggestion is giving moderators so much work the site would be unprofitable. How on earth you'd "verify the provenance" of a meme subreddit? Or you want moderators to google image search every image posted ? And moderation is always convenient for site operator, especially if they don't pay for it. "Curation" is the bigger problem; moderation is by definition weeding out the bad and steering the discussion into, well, discussion instead of shouting match. But fucking with recommendations to show whatever your corporate interest aligns with, recent examples being japanese twitter being filled by anime and mechs instead of polarizing politics after musk fired their content team > Moderation is why you are not liable to begin with. You are liable for shit you say on internet, moderation or not. This law was about moderators and site owners not being liable for stuff users put on them, not users themselves >> Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like". >Not really, there are clear enough legal definition. Of course there is criminal law but in addition to that, whatever in state or federal law that is already defined as action or speech for which you can become liable, now the site owner also gets liable in addition to the original poster if and only if the site owner refuses to do moderation. So if "the thing I don't like" is something I can sue you for, I would need to win a suit against the original poster first and then sue the site owner for refusing to have moderation capabilities or not reviewing flagged posts and taking them down. If only take downs were for actual legal cases we'd be in much better place. What social sites define "harmful content" and what law does is vastly different, like the recent disaster with vaccine communication. * [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2022/11/14/japanese-twitter-trends-shift-away-from-politics-to-pop-culture-after-curation-team-is-laid-off/?sh=3f0179702776 https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2022/11/14/japanese...

by ilyt 4y ago

_8j50 4y ago

Prosecutors would have to prove you upvoted knowing it was "the wrong porn". > All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal And take it down? With that stipulation it is even more than what I said because best effort moderation is not neccesarily reporting to the government. Just bans and removal are best effort right? Once the content is taken down, I don't think there should be a reporting requirement unless a criminal law was broken. > The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Are you kidding? Users will flock specifically for shit and pay for it too. I won't even mention any of them I am sure you must know this. Filth is actually very profitable. Well meaning site operators and users should be protected but for everyone else there needs to be a moderation incentive. If I bully you on HN for example, what is the incentive to ban me other than the goodwill of moderators? What if they prefer to have as many users as possible even if they can't reasonably review every flagged post? My suggestion is to provise that incentive so that moderation happens not just when it is convenient for the site operator. Moderation is why you are not liable to begin with. > Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like". Not really, there are clear enough legal definition. Of course there is criminal law but in addition to that, whatever in state or federal law that is already defined as action or speech for which you can become liable, now the site owner also gets liable in addition to the original poster if and only if the site owner refuses to do moderation. So if "the thing I don't like" is something I can sue you for, I would need to win a suit against the original poster first and then sue the site owner for refusing to have moderation capabilities or not reviewing flagged posts and taking them down.

ilyt 4y ago
> Prosecutors would have to prove you upvoted knowing it was "the wrong porn". Why you want to prosecute people clicking the arrow button on the website IN THE FIRST PLACE? That's some 1984 shit right here. Prosecution for unlawfully liking a picture, wtf is this shit ? >> All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal >And take it down? With that stipulation it is even more than what I said because best effort moderation is not neccesarily reporting to the government. Just bans and removal are best effort right? Once the content is taken down, I don't think there should be a reporting requirement unless a criminal law was broken. If it is illegal it should be taken down, if it is not it should not. Sharing sextape without consent of the partner is illegal AFAIK, offender gets reported and court/police orders site to take it down. Moderation have NOTHING to do with it. >> The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. >Are you kidding? Users will flock specifically for shit and pay for it too. I I should elaborate on that. "It is not filled with shit they don't like". Sites like reddit give user a good chance to find a space where there is a lot of stuff they like and that's why they're being popular. There might be subreddit filled with everything you hate but you ain't getting it in suggestions by algorithm (as suggestions is not main front of reddit, unlike twitter/facebook) and you don't have to go there > If I bully you on HN for example, what is the incentive to ban me other than the goodwill of moderators? I mean... better written social media sites just have [Block] button where I can choose to not see given person's ramblings. But giving user the power to choose what they do or do not want to see seems to be passe. Altho to be fair twitter does have some features around it. But people want to decide what other people don't want to see so would rather bother moderators with false positives than to just mute the person they disagree with. It would actually be interesting to see stats on how many "bad because you were naughty" ends up in just that user creating new account, but that would be probably a very hard stat to get. > My suggestion is to provise that incentive so that moderation happens not just when it is convenient for the site operator. Your suggestion is giving moderators so much work the site would be unprofitable. How on earth you'd "verify the provenance" of a meme subreddit? Or you want moderators to google image search every image posted ? And moderation is always convenient for site operator, especially if they don't pay for it. "Curation" is the bigger problem; moderation is by definition weeding out the bad and steering the discussion into, well, discussion instead of shouting match. But fucking with recommendations to show whatever your corporate interest aligns with, recent examples being japanese twitter being filled by anime and mechs instead of polarizing politics after musk fired their content team > Moderation is why you are not liable to begin with. You are liable for shit you say on internet, moderation or not. This law was about moderators and site owners not being liable for stuff users put on them, not users themselves >> Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like". >Not really, there are clear enough legal definition. Of course there is criminal law but in addition to that, whatever in state or federal law that is already defined as action or speech for which you can become liable, now the site owner also gets liable in addition to the original poster if and only if the site owner refuses to do moderation. So if "the thing I don't like" is something I can sue you for, I would need to win a suit against the original poster first and then sue the site owner for refusing to have moderation capabilities or not reviewing flagged posts and taking them down. If only take downs were for actual legal cases we'd be in much better place. What social sites define "harmful content" and what law does is vastly different, like the recent disaster with vaccine communication. * [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2022/11/14/japanese-twitter-trends-shift-away-from-politics-to-pop-culture-after-curation-team-is-laid-off/?sh=3f0179702776 https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2022/11/14/japanese...