3 ms·

I think the alternative is not a hellscape. The alternative is a clear, specific, transparent, rule-based moderation. In particular, I think that it's best to c

I think the alternative is not a hellscape. The alternative is a clear, specific, transparent, rule-based moderation. In particular, I think that it's best to control the "temperature" of the discussion (even if subjectively), but keep the topics of the discussion completely open. Why would people not be allowed to discuss certain things, if these things gain enough traction? Instead, you could just control the temperature: banning the usage of bad words, personal attacks, etc...

pixl97 3y ago
The first rule of creating any system is remember that 'everyone' is smarter than you. The problem with rule based moderation quickly boils down to the Sortie's Paradox. Everyone that is smarter than you will quickly find logical contradictions in your system based on the uncertainty of language and your system collapses in the meta argument. When defining a rule based system, remember the problem space is enormous, potentially even unbounded. As your number of rules grow the number of conflicting rules will increase. Then there are some things like politics that low temperature conversations are near impossible in already...
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Everyone, combined, is smarter then Godel but no one has disproved his theory yet after close to a hundred years. Why is it automatically impossible for a set of moderation rules to be as rigorous and logically correct?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Language is not rigorous and logically correct. Unless you're planning to demand your users only use one particular language only a well defined subset of it. Using a theory as a comparison is generally a pretty poor example as we have no universal theory that defines everything, instead they are targeted at only a small slice of 'something'. Language has a larger scope than that.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      > Language is not rigorous and logically correct. Unless you're planning to demand your users only use one particular language only a well defined subset of it. Can you demonstrate why this is the case?
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Good = Good Bad = Bad Bad = Good There you go, language is logically inconsistent.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  I completely agree and that's what I was trying to say with the "right up to the line" part but you explained it more succinctly and clearly, thank you. In addition, not every discussion/content belongs everywhere. I've seen "well if people upvote it then they like it and it should stay" argument made before and I've also seen it fail. Memes, jokes, or the more extreme example, porn, might get upvotes but that doesn't mean it belongs in a certain community. That's not to say any of those things are bad or don't have a place but not every place needs to cater to or allow them. Some people want spaces to hang out that don't discuss politics and/or want to stay laser-focused on a certain topic and that's ok but some people see that and scream "censorship!". What it really comes down to is that person wants to say whatever _they_ want to say, but they certainly don't want a real "free speech zone" because that would drive them away too in the end. No, they want an exception to the rule for themselves and when they don't get it they cry foul.

pixl97 3y ago

The first rule of creating any system is remember that 'everyone' is smarter than you. The problem with rule based moderation quickly boils down to the Sortie's Paradox. Everyone that is smarter than you will quickly find logical contradictions in your system based on the uncertainty of language and your system collapses in the meta argument. When defining a rule based system, remember the problem space is enormous, potentially even unbounded. As your number of rules grow the number of conflicting rules will increase. Then there are some things like politics that low temperature conversations are near impossible in already...

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Everyone, combined, is smarter then Godel but no one has disproved his theory yet after close to a hundred years. Why is it automatically impossible for a set of moderation rules to be as rigorous and logically correct?
- pixl97 3y ago
  Language is not rigorous and logically correct. Unless you're planning to demand your users only use one particular language only a well defined subset of it. Using a theory as a comparison is generally a pretty poor example as we have no universal theory that defines everything, instead they are targeted at only a small slice of 'something'. Language has a larger scope than that.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > Language is not rigorous and logically correct. Unless you're planning to demand your users only use one particular language only a well defined subset of it. Can you demonstrate why this is the case?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Good = Good Bad = Bad Bad = Good There you go, language is logically inconsistent.
joshstrange 3y ago
I completely agree and that's what I was trying to say with the "right up to the line" part but you explained it more succinctly and clearly, thank you. In addition, not every discussion/content belongs everywhere. I've seen "well if people upvote it then they like it and it should stay" argument made before and I've also seen it fail. Memes, jokes, or the more extreme example, porn, might get upvotes but that doesn't mean it belongs in a certain community. That's not to say any of those things are bad or don't have a place but not every place needs to cater to or allow them. Some people want spaces to hang out that don't discuss politics and/or want to stay laser-focused on a certain topic and that's ok but some people see that and scream "censorship!". What it really comes down to is that person wants to say whatever _they_ want to say, but they certainly don't want a real "free speech zone" because that would drive them away too in the end. No, they want an exception to the rule for themselves and when they don't get it they cry foul.