3 ms·

Do you not see the irony in your comment? You are anti-censorship, but complain the front page is entirely spam. Sounds like you use 'censorship' to describe mo

Do you not see the irony in your comment? You are anti-censorship, but complain the front page is entirely spam. Sounds like you use 'censorship' to describe moderation of content you like, and 'spam' to describe content that you don't like. You tell the creator that you are not going to use the site because they haven't censored content you don't want to see.

afavour 3y ago
Right, this is exactly the dilemma facing pretty much any site of this nature. Some level of censorship is required otherwise the site will be unusable but exactly how much is “right” is an endless debate.
- dylkil 3y ago
  You can offer censorship to users who want it, everything stays up but some people dont see it
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    Then someone on your ignore list starts posting all sorts of false/defamatory comments about you with know way for you to ever see it. You have no idea what's happening but your reputation is turned to shit. It's a reverse shadow ban and just about as broken.
    - dylkil 3y ago
      thats a bit of a stretch
hatsunearu 3y ago
I'm pretty sure curated content (whether via an editor or via voting) is substantially identical to just moderation (i.e. "censorship")
bhaney 3y ago
> Do you not see the irony in your comment? Of course I do? I'm well aware that the spam is obviously a direct result of the lack of any content moderation, in the name of anti-censorship. I can oppose censorship as a general concept while also acknowledging that it's difficult (or maybe impossible) to build publicly accessible Internet communities that are of high quality in their discussion while also being resistant to censorship. Recognizing that doesn't mean I have to stop supporting attempts to make them play nicely.
- malermeister 3y ago
  The issue here is that "spam" is subjective. What might be spam to you, might not be spam to somebody super religious or with a very different world view;like a communist vs a silicon valley vc.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Pretty sure OP is aware of that too. Not sure why everyone is talking to them as if they’re clueless.
hanniabu 3y ago
Moderation is not the same as censorship

afavour 3y ago

Right, this is exactly the dilemma facing pretty much any site of this nature. Some level of censorship is required otherwise the site will be unusable but exactly how much is “right” is an endless debate.

dylkil 3y ago
You can offer censorship to users who want it, everything stays up but some people dont see it
- giantrobot 3y ago
  Then someone on your ignore list starts posting all sorts of false/defamatory comments about you with know way for you to ever see it. You have no idea what's happening but your reputation is turned to shit. It's a reverse shadow ban and just about as broken.
  - dylkil 3y ago
    thats a bit of a stretch

hatsunearu 3y ago

I'm pretty sure curated content (whether via an editor or via voting) is substantially identical to just moderation (i.e. "censorship")

bhaney 3y ago

> Do you not see the irony in your comment? Of course I do? I'm well aware that the spam is obviously a direct result of the lack of any content moderation, in the name of anti-censorship. I can oppose censorship as a general concept while also acknowledging that it's difficult (or maybe impossible) to build publicly accessible Internet communities that are of high quality in their discussion while also being resistant to censorship. Recognizing that doesn't mean I have to stop supporting attempts to make them play nicely.

malermeister 3y ago
The issue here is that "spam" is subjective. What might be spam to you, might not be spam to somebody super religious or with a very different world view;like a communist vs a silicon valley vc.
- afavour 3y ago
  Pretty sure OP is aware of that too. Not sure why everyone is talking to them as if they’re clueless.

hanniabu 3y ago

Moderation is not the same as censorship