4 ms·

Moderation just leads to censorship. Upvote / downvotes are good enough on their own, we don’t need someone babysitting us.

mark242 2y ago
That is fundamentally wrong. Pushing content moderation onto every person who posts a message on social media is a chilling effect on people posting. Pushing content moderation onto every person who reads a message on social media is a chilling effect on people reading.
- symlinkk 2y ago
  People are fine reading stuff they disagree with, it’s fun that way. They just downvote if they disagree. It’s not fun sitting around in a moderated hugbox where everyone is saying the same thing
  - TRiG_Ireland 2y ago
    "Stuff I disagree with" is fine. Outright hate is not. There are limits.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    You're talking about a system of good actors that just disagree on what's being said, if you spend 10 minutes running your own site you'll quickly learn there is a metric shitton of bad actors. Run something unmoderated long enough and, depending where you are, you'll have law enforcement knocking on your door.
  - ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
    Downvotes are a perfect way to ensure you end up with a hugbox where people are afraid to disagree.
    - krapp 2y ago
      >Downvotes are a perfect way to ensure you end up with a hugbox where people are afraid to disagree. Hacker News has downvotes and people here disagree all the time. It's subjective but it even feels like downvoting and disagreement have increased over time, so the presence of downvotes at best doesn't seem to have an effect and at worse seems to encourage disagreement. In fact, I actually can't think of a platform for which your claim is actually true.
BeetleB 2y ago
> Moderation just leads to censorship I welcome censorship on my personal site because I control the censorship. Likewise I'd like the option of controlling the conversation for responses to my posts. You're welcome to say whatever you want about me - under your own threads. You're not going to get much sympathy if your stance is censorship = bad > Upvote / downvotes are good enough on their own Not sure I've seen this work. It's not good enough for Reddit or HN, both of which have heavy moderation.
- symlinkk 2y ago
  There are minimally moderated Reddit subs where it works beautifully
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  If I couldn't run my own site with social features and reserve the right to kick anybody out just because I probably wouldn't run a site with social features. For a small site the argument is that there are many other small sites you could go to if you got kicked out of one or the other. For a site like Facebook or YouTube, however, it starts looking more and more like an essential public utility. I think of a case in my town where there is a person who is being a real jerk to their neighbors who run a "BiPOC garden". They've filed a federal discrimination case which probably won't accomplish anything because discrimination law applies to landlords, employers and similar gatekeepers -- like the stork said in this book https://www.paperbackswap.com/Nuts-Nightingale-Sweet-Jacquelyn-Reinach/book/143219/ https://www.paperbackswap.com/Nuts-Nightingale-Sweet-Jacquel... "You can't make a law that makes people be nice"
jay_kyburz 2y ago
Hacker News only works because it is heavily censored.
- verdverm 2y ago
  Censorship is a government activity Moderation is a private entity activity
  - VancouverMan 2y ago
    Those distinctions have absolutely no basis in reality. Censorship is merely the act of limiting access to information. It doesn't matter who is doing this. Yes, governments often do it, but so can private entities. An individual can even do it to himself, in the form of self-censorship. Moderation is the application of censorship in order to modify a discussion. Once again, anyone could potentially do this, including governments. An individual can do this to himself, too, by selectively choosing which parts of a discussion to consume.
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    No. Censorship is the decision to remove. Moderation is the deduction to remove. Hackernews is censored fairly strongly, and moderated "ok".
    - verdverm 2y ago
      What topics do you find are "censored" from HN? Who do you think is doing this?
      - seoulmetro 2y ago
        Dang personally censors and endorses censorship on this forum. If a thread gets too many replies it is censored. If dang finds your comment personally offensive but it's not against the rules, it will be removed. It's a fine line between moderation and censorship unfortunately.
seattle_spring 2y ago
Having seen many, many comments in my lifetime that have ultimately been removed due to moderation: yes, we do seem to need someone babysitting us. Without moderation, bad actors end up ruling all spaces. Bad actors are especially egregious in spaces dedicated toward a niche topic. Want to talk about hiking in a hiking forum? Nope! Ends up in culture war talking points and racial epithets. That might be the type of communication platform you'd like, but the vast majority of people disagree. Good moderation is a Godsend, and dismissing it as "censorship" is a thought terminating cliche.

mark242 2y ago

That is fundamentally wrong. Pushing content moderation onto every person who posts a message on social media is a chilling effect on people posting. Pushing content moderation onto every person who reads a message on social media is a chilling effect on people reading.

symlinkk 2y ago
People are fine reading stuff they disagree with, it’s fun that way. They just downvote if they disagree. It’s not fun sitting around in a moderated hugbox where everyone is saying the same thing
- TRiG_Ireland 2y ago
  "Stuff I disagree with" is fine. Outright hate is not. There are limits.
- pixl97 2y ago
  You're talking about a system of good actors that just disagree on what's being said, if you spend 10 minutes running your own site you'll quickly learn there is a metric shitton of bad actors. Run something unmoderated long enough and, depending where you are, you'll have law enforcement knocking on your door.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
  Downvotes are a perfect way to ensure you end up with a hugbox where people are afraid to disagree.
  - krapp 2y ago
    >Downvotes are a perfect way to ensure you end up with a hugbox where people are afraid to disagree. Hacker News has downvotes and people here disagree all the time. It's subjective but it even feels like downvoting and disagreement have increased over time, so the presence of downvotes at best doesn't seem to have an effect and at worse seems to encourage disagreement. In fact, I actually can't think of a platform for which your claim is actually true.

BeetleB 2y ago

> Moderation just leads to censorship I welcome censorship on my personal site because I control the censorship. Likewise I'd like the option of controlling the conversation for responses to my posts. You're welcome to say whatever you want about me - under your own threads. You're not going to get much sympathy if your stance is censorship = bad > Upvote / downvotes are good enough on their own Not sure I've seen this work. It's not good enough for Reddit or HN, both of which have heavy moderation.

symlinkk 2y ago
There are minimally moderated Reddit subs where it works beautifully
PaulHoule 2y ago
If I couldn't run my own site with social features and reserve the right to kick anybody out just because I probably wouldn't run a site with social features. For a small site the argument is that there are many other small sites you could go to if you got kicked out of one or the other. For a site like Facebook or YouTube, however, it starts looking more and more like an essential public utility. I think of a case in my town where there is a person who is being a real jerk to their neighbors who run a "BiPOC garden". They've filed a federal discrimination case which probably won't accomplish anything because discrimination law applies to landlords, employers and similar gatekeepers -- like the stork said in this book https://www.paperbackswap.com/Nuts-Nightingale-Sweet-Jacquelyn-Reinach/book/143219/ https://www.paperbackswap.com/Nuts-Nightingale-Sweet-Jacquel... "You can't make a law that makes people be nice"

jay_kyburz 2y ago

Hacker News only works because it is heavily censored.

verdverm 2y ago
Censorship is a government activity Moderation is a private entity activity
- VancouverMan 2y ago
  Those distinctions have absolutely no basis in reality. Censorship is merely the act of limiting access to information. It doesn't matter who is doing this. Yes, governments often do it, but so can private entities. An individual can even do it to himself, in the form of self-censorship. Moderation is the application of censorship in order to modify a discussion. Once again, anyone could potentially do this, including governments. An individual can do this to himself, too, by selectively choosing which parts of a discussion to consume.
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  No. Censorship is the decision to remove. Moderation is the deduction to remove. Hackernews is censored fairly strongly, and moderated "ok".
  - verdverm 2y ago
    What topics do you find are "censored" from HN? Who do you think is doing this?
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      Dang personally censors and endorses censorship on this forum. If a thread gets too many replies it is censored. If dang finds your comment personally offensive but it's not against the rules, it will be removed. It's a fine line between moderation and censorship unfortunately.

seattle_spring 2y ago

Having seen many, many comments in my lifetime that have ultimately been removed due to moderation: yes, we do seem to need someone babysitting us. Without moderation, bad actors end up ruling all spaces. Bad actors are especially egregious in spaces dedicated toward a niche topic. Want to talk about hiking in a hiking forum? Nope! Ends up in culture war talking points and racial epithets. That might be the type of communication platform you'd like, but the vast majority of people disagree. Good moderation is a Godsend, and dismissing it as "censorship" is a thought terminating cliche.