3 ms·

why not let people say whatever they want? you already hinted the appropriate solution which is that you don't have to listen.

toss1 8mo ago
If a social network has an ACTUAL straight chronological feed of only accts you follow, or lists you curate, that works great. Somebody posts abhorrent Nazi racist crap, or lies about what is happening, you shut them off, and they'll never be heard by you again. Yes, you need to see/hear the crap or propaganda once for each Nazi or liar, but that's it. The problem is nearly every social platform needs to increase your engagement get you to click or scroll just another time so they get to show you more adverts and make more money and claim more 'engagement' to juice their stock price. So along with having to listen to the advertisements, you ALSO are REQUIRED to see/listen to the crap and lies. The good solution — "you don't have to listen" — is not an actual option in the real world. (NB: This is why Section 230 should only protect web providers if they have no algorithm. Once they have an algo, they exercise more editorial control than any newspaper or broadcast editor — they ARE responsible for the content, not because they posted it, their users did, but because they routed it to you.)
- raffael_de 8mo ago
  the context here is the fediverse and not social platforms based on financial incentives.
Arainach 8mo ago
Community members are a finite resource. Moderators are a downright scare resource. When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community and are left with a toxic cesspool that no one wants to visit. Your moderators will burn out and leave as well. That's a very reliable way for your space to die. Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it, and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win.
- raffael_de 8mo ago
  > Moderators are a downright scare resource. if you restrict moderation to stuff like gore and porn, then you don't need that many moderators. > When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community can't people just unfollow or block others whose opinions they don't want to see? > Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it there is no obligation to refute bullshit to begin with. it's a personal choice about how to spend your time. > and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win. what's there to win? there is nothing to win for anybody. there's only something to lose and that's time.
  - handoflixue 8mo ago
    > if you restrict moderation to stuff like gore and porn, then you don't need that many moderators. Have you ever been involved with moderating even a small subreddit or Discord server? I'm on a server with one moderator and it routinely gets spammed while the guy is asleep. > can't people just unfollow or block others whose opinions they don't want to see? How do I block people BEFORE seeing the opinions I don't want to see? Trolls can roll up a new account for every single post they make, if they want to. > there is no obligation to refute bullshit to begin with. No, but if you're neither blocking nor refuting it, then your community is going to quickly become majority bullshit.
    - raffael_de 8mo ago
      it seems to me that the networking design is flawed. just to give a simple example: whitelisting (only seeing content of friends and followees) versus blacklisting (seeing everything ranked by an algorithm). wouldn't whitelisting already solve most of those issues? that would actually be my preferred modus anyway.
      - Arainach 8mo ago
        No, because that puts the effort of fighting bad actors on everyone. It means that every day you have new trolls spewing hate in your comments, and that your users have to constantly keep blocking trolls who follow them (and who recruit other trolls to join them) until they get tired and leave the platform. This isn't an academic debate, we've been seeing this play out online for at least 30 years. Probably longer - I wasn't around for Usenet's heyday but it wasn't immune either.

toss1 8mo ago

If a social network has an ACTUAL straight chronological feed of only accts you follow, or lists you curate, that works great. Somebody posts abhorrent Nazi racist crap, or lies about what is happening, you shut them off, and they'll never be heard by you again. Yes, you need to see/hear the crap or propaganda once for each Nazi or liar, but that's it. The problem is nearly every social platform needs to increase your engagement get you to click or scroll just another time so they get to show you more adverts and make more money and claim more 'engagement' to juice their stock price. So along with having to listen to the advertisements, you ALSO are REQUIRED to see/listen to the crap and lies. The good solution — "you don't have to listen" — is not an actual option in the real world. (NB: This is why Section 230 should only protect web providers if they have no algorithm. Once they have an algo, they exercise more editorial control than any newspaper or broadcast editor — they ARE responsible for the content, not because they posted it, their users did, but because they routed it to you.)

raffael_de 8mo ago
the context here is the fediverse and not social platforms based on financial incentives.

Arainach 8mo ago

Community members are a finite resource. Moderators are a downright scare resource. When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community and are left with a toxic cesspool that no one wants to visit. Your moderators will burn out and leave as well. That's a very reliable way for your space to die. Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it, and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win.

raffael_de 8mo ago
> Moderators are a downright scare resource. if you restrict moderation to stuff like gore and porn, then you don't need that many moderators. > When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community can't people just unfollow or block others whose opinions they don't want to see? > Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it there is no obligation to refute bullshit to begin with. it's a personal choice about how to spend your time. > and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win. what's there to win? there is nothing to win for anybody. there's only something to lose and that's time.
- handoflixue 8mo ago
  > if you restrict moderation to stuff like gore and porn, then you don't need that many moderators. Have you ever been involved with moderating even a small subreddit or Discord server? I'm on a server with one moderator and it routinely gets spammed while the guy is asleep. > can't people just unfollow or block others whose opinions they don't want to see? How do I block people BEFORE seeing the opinions I don't want to see? Trolls can roll up a new account for every single post they make, if they want to. > there is no obligation to refute bullshit to begin with. No, but if you're neither blocking nor refuting it, then your community is going to quickly become majority bullshit.
  - raffael_de 8mo ago
    it seems to me that the networking design is flawed. just to give a simple example: whitelisting (only seeing content of friends and followees) versus blacklisting (seeing everything ranked by an algorithm). wouldn't whitelisting already solve most of those issues? that would actually be my preferred modus anyway.
    - Arainach 8mo ago
      No, because that puts the effort of fighting bad actors on everyone. It means that every day you have new trolls spewing hate in your comments, and that your users have to constantly keep blocking trolls who follow them (and who recruit other trolls to join them) until they get tired and leave the platform. This isn't an academic debate, we've been seeing this play out online for at least 30 years. Probably longer - I wasn't around for Usenet's heyday but it wasn't immune either.