3 ms·

Mike Masnick wrote the speed run guide to content moderation here: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderatio

Mike Masnick wrote the speed run guide to content moderation here: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you... In short, the problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of "problematic" content. No matter what definition you think is reasonable for moderation, there will both be people who complain that it is too permissive and people who complain that it is too restrictive. At a large enough scale, people on both extremes of the spectrum will be complaining about your moderation policies--and at very large scales, there will be politicians to listen to them!

sanity 3y ago
There's definitely a slippery slope when you start with centralized moderation, which seems to be the article's central argument. With the new Freenet, we're using a decentralized moderation system that lets users control what they see or don't see, based on sensible defaults. This builds on a concept from the original Freenet called web-of-trust[1]. I believe this method, combined with the fact that centralized censorship is impossible in the new Freenet due to its lack of centralized control, offers a strong alternative. [1] https://github.com/hyphanet/plugin-WebOfTrust/blob/master/developer-documentation/core-developers-manual/OadSFfF-version1.2-non-print-edition.pdf https://github.com/hyphanet/plugin-WebOfTrust/blob/master/de...
- int_19h 3y ago
  There's also Aether, which has a system based on delegation: https://getaether.net/docs/faq/voting_and_elections/ https://getaether.net/docs/faq/voting_and_elections/ In essence, you can either curate all content yourself, or you can upvote other people's curation for a given community. The curators who are voted for by the majority of a community effectively become the default moderators for it, but any member can explicitly opt out of curation by any given moderator.
echelon 3y ago
> In short, the problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of "problematic" content. I got banned from my city's subreddit for making a mild criticism about crime once. Now I'm shut off from events, networking, etc. I'm from the southeast, which is a conservative area of the country. The internet I grew up on had thicker skin, wasn't trigger happy with banning, and because of that I was exposed to ideas and perspectives that I wouldn't have ordinarily been in contact with. People didn't have a disgruntled disposition that immediately banned opposing views on sight, so I was able to soak in so much information. Expressly because of this, I was able to change my shape from a conservative kid into a well-rounded moderate. I don't think I could replicate this experience easily on today's internet. People are divided into factions and are quick to mute and ban those they disagree with. (The rage-centric algorithms also heighten confrontational language and showdowns, but that's another issue.) Censorship almost always leads to imbalanced power dynamics and gatekeeping. It's become a tit-for-tat tool of retaliation and playing "gotcha". People enjoy digitally flicking each other off by banning them. It's super fucked. Filtering is important, but we should have protocols for that where individuals have complete control and discretion. I don't know how that's supposed to work on platforms that are wholly controlled by profit-seeking corporations, but maybe legislation can craft a way forward. I really hope we don't dive deeper into the censorship rabbit hole. It genuinely terrifies me more than any other issue facing humanity.
- xetplan 3y ago
  I totally understand what you mean by growing up on a different internet. The mistake I made as a kid was in believing people wanted things like intellectual freedom and to contemplate things they don't agree as to potentially grow and learn something new. People don't want that at all. I think we can see that largely, people want to be told what to think and then demonize those that think differently for entertainment. That is basically what defines our culture in 2024. This is just the start of this new culture too. There is so much room left to run when you still have people who remember what things were like at the start of the internet. What is gen alpha going to save the culture? I think that will be a really comical thought in 15-20 years. We are still pretty close to the surface. Maybe I won't because of old age but as a society we are going way deeper.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> In short, the problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of "problematic" content. No matter what definition you think is reasonable for moderation, there will both be people who complain that it is too permissive and people who complain that it is too restrictive. But this is rather the point. What you need is a wall between hosting and discovery. Alice has some rather controversial things to say, Bob wants to hear about them and Caren doesn't. So Bob and Caren should be using different filtering systems that they can choose for themselves. What shouldn't happen is that Alice gets banned from the internet or shadow banned on a dominant platform with a network effect just because Caren doesn't like her, because Caren should only be deciding for Caren and not Bob. This doesn't mean Caren has to design her own filtering system. She can use someone else's. But she should have a choice in which one to use, independent of the underlying platform, and so should Bob. Right now we tie the filtering system to the thing with the network effect and then have Zuckerberg or Musk deciding for everybody when it should be everybody deciding for themselves.
- firejake308 3y ago
  The problem is that it's an awful lot of work for everyone to decide for themselves, and I don't think the average user is going to care enough to build their own moderation algorithm. They'll just complain and move on
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > This doesn't mean Caren has to design her own filtering system. She can use someone else's. There can be one filter that only blocks spam and scams, another that blocks conservatives, another that blocks spam, scams and celebrity gossip, another that only shows technical content etc. You open the config options and pick one, like you choose an ad blocker or a radio station. If you don't like it you pick a different one. It shouldn't be that hard.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      Who is in charge of tagging every bit of content so your filter works? And if the answer is "AI", then who trains it and with what data?

sanity 3y ago

There's definitely a slippery slope when you start with centralized moderation, which seems to be the article's central argument. With the new Freenet, we're using a decentralized moderation system that lets users control what they see or don't see, based on sensible defaults. This builds on a concept from the original Freenet called web-of-trust[1]. I believe this method, combined with the fact that centralized censorship is impossible in the new Freenet due to its lack of centralized control, offers a strong alternative. [1] https://github.com/hyphanet/plugin-WebOfTrust/blob/master/developer-documentation/core-developers-manual/OadSFfF-version1.2-non-print-edition.pdf https://github.com/hyphanet/plugin-WebOfTrust/blob/master/de...

int_19h 3y ago
There's also Aether, which has a system based on delegation: https://getaether.net/docs/faq/voting_and_elections/ https://getaether.net/docs/faq/voting_and_elections/ In essence, you can either curate all content yourself, or you can upvote other people's curation for a given community. The curators who are voted for by the majority of a community effectively become the default moderators for it, but any member can explicitly opt out of curation by any given moderator.

echelon 3y ago

> In short, the problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of "problematic" content. I got banned from my city's subreddit for making a mild criticism about crime once. Now I'm shut off from events, networking, etc. I'm from the southeast, which is a conservative area of the country. The internet I grew up on had thicker skin, wasn't trigger happy with banning, and because of that I was exposed to ideas and perspectives that I wouldn't have ordinarily been in contact with. People didn't have a disgruntled disposition that immediately banned opposing views on sight, so I was able to soak in so much information. Expressly because of this, I was able to change my shape from a conservative kid into a well-rounded moderate. I don't think I could replicate this experience easily on today's internet. People are divided into factions and are quick to mute and ban those they disagree with. (The rage-centric algorithms also heighten confrontational language and showdowns, but that's another issue.) Censorship almost always leads to imbalanced power dynamics and gatekeeping. It's become a tit-for-tat tool of retaliation and playing "gotcha". People enjoy digitally flicking each other off by banning them. It's super fucked. Filtering is important, but we should have protocols for that where individuals have complete control and discretion. I don't know how that's supposed to work on platforms that are wholly controlled by profit-seeking corporations, but maybe legislation can craft a way forward. I really hope we don't dive deeper into the censorship rabbit hole. It genuinely terrifies me more than any other issue facing humanity.

xetplan 3y ago
I totally understand what you mean by growing up on a different internet. The mistake I made as a kid was in believing people wanted things like intellectual freedom and to contemplate things they don't agree as to potentially grow and learn something new. People don't want that at all. I think we can see that largely, people want to be told what to think and then demonize those that think differently for entertainment. That is basically what defines our culture in 2024. This is just the start of this new culture too. There is so much room left to run when you still have people who remember what things were like at the start of the internet. What is gen alpha going to save the culture? I think that will be a really comical thought in 15-20 years. We are still pretty close to the surface. Maybe I won't because of old age but as a society we are going way deeper.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> In short, the problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of "problematic" content. No matter what definition you think is reasonable for moderation, there will both be people who complain that it is too permissive and people who complain that it is too restrictive. But this is rather the point. What you need is a wall between hosting and discovery. Alice has some rather controversial things to say, Bob wants to hear about them and Caren doesn't. So Bob and Caren should be using different filtering systems that they can choose for themselves. What shouldn't happen is that Alice gets banned from the internet or shadow banned on a dominant platform with a network effect just because Caren doesn't like her, because Caren should only be deciding for Caren and not Bob. This doesn't mean Caren has to design her own filtering system. She can use someone else's. But she should have a choice in which one to use, independent of the underlying platform, and so should Bob. Right now we tie the filtering system to the thing with the network effect and then have Zuckerberg or Musk deciding for everybody when it should be everybody deciding for themselves.

firejake308 3y ago
The problem is that it's an awful lot of work for everyone to decide for themselves, and I don't think the average user is going to care enough to build their own moderation algorithm. They'll just complain and move on
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > This doesn't mean Caren has to design her own filtering system. She can use someone else's. There can be one filter that only blocks spam and scams, another that blocks conservatives, another that blocks spam, scams and celebrity gossip, another that only shows technical content etc. You open the config options and pick one, like you choose an ad blocker or a radio station. If you don't like it you pick a different one. It shouldn't be that hard.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Who is in charge of tagging every bit of content so your filter works? And if the answer is "AI", then who trains it and with what data?