7 ms·

Charge them $10 to create an account (anonymous, real, parody whatever), then if they break a rule give them a warning, 2 rule breaks, a 24 hour posting suspens

Charge them $10 to create an account (anonymous, real, parody whatever), then if they break a rule give them a warning, 2 rule breaks, a 24 hour posting suspension, 3 strikes and permanently ban the account. Let them reregister for $10. Congrats, i just solved spam, bots, assholes and permanent line steppers.

pfortuny 4y ago
The problem is the meaning of those rules. Any rule looks reasonable when it is written down. And after some time it becomes a weapon. For instance, the three deletions (forget the exact term) rule in wikipedia. It is now a tool used by “the first to write”…
dwater 4y ago
This is how the SomethingAwful forums operated when they started charging for accounts. Unfortunately it probably wouldn't be useful as a test case because it was/is, at it's core, a shitposting site.
- rsync 4y ago
  I think metafilter still does this ?
- nebqr 4y ago
  And twitter isn't?
pixl97 4y ago
Unless you generate more than $10 from the account. For example in presidential election years in the US billions is spent in advertising the elections. A few PACs would gladly throw cash at astroturf movements on social media even at the risk of being banned.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Sounds good to me. That would mean that your energy in moderation would directly result in income. If superpacs are willing to pay $3.33 a message, that's a money-spinner.
etchalon 4y ago
You solved bots, but destroyed the product.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  I mean, who here remembers app.net? Love the Garry Tan endorsement! https://web.archive.org/web/20120903182620/https://join.app.net/ https://web.archive.org/web/20120903182620/https://join.app.... EDIT: Lol Dalton's PART of YC now. Hey dude, why not pitch it then
- lancesells 4y ago
  I don't even know if it solved bots. Rich countries, rich organizations, rich people could do a lot. $100M would buy you 10M bots.
  - cvwright 4y ago
    I think the idea is that it shifts the incentives. Sure, a rich nation state could buy tons of bot accounts at $10 a pop. But is that still the most rational path to their goal? Probably not, because there are lots of other things you can do for $100M.
DeanWormer 4y ago
This was the strategy at the SomethingAwful forums. They seemed pretty well moderated, but definitely never hit the scale of Reddit or Twitter.
- v64 4y ago
  Having posted there in its heyday, it made for an interesting self-moderation dynamic for sure. Before I posted something totally offbase that I knew I'd be punished for, I had to think "is saying this stupid shit really worth $10 to me?". Many times that was enough to get me to pause (but sometimes you also can't help yourself and it's well worth the price).
pclmulqdq 4y ago
This kind of thing worked for a few forums that tried it before FB/Twitter came around.

pfortuny 4y ago

The problem is the meaning of those rules. Any rule looks reasonable when it is written down. And after some time it becomes a weapon. For instance, the three deletions (forget the exact term) rule in wikipedia. It is now a tool used by “the first to write”…

dwater 4y ago

This is how the SomethingAwful forums operated when they started charging for accounts. Unfortunately it probably wouldn't be useful as a test case because it was/is, at it's core, a shitposting site.

rsync 4y ago
I think metafilter still does this ?
nebqr 4y ago
And twitter isn't?

pixl97 4y ago

Unless you generate more than $10 from the account. For example in presidential election years in the US billions is spent in advertising the elections. A few PACs would gladly throw cash at astroturf movements on social media even at the risk of being banned.

pessimizer 4y ago
Sounds good to me. That would mean that your energy in moderation would directly result in income. If superpacs are willing to pay $3.33 a message, that's a money-spinner.

etchalon 4y ago

You solved bots, but destroyed the product.

trynewideas 4y ago
I mean, who here remembers app.net? Love the Garry Tan endorsement! https://web.archive.org/web/20120903182620/https://join.app.net/ https://web.archive.org/web/20120903182620/https://join.app.... EDIT: Lol Dalton's PART of YC now. Hey dude, why not pitch it then
lancesells 4y ago
I don't even know if it solved bots. Rich countries, rich organizations, rich people could do a lot. $100M would buy you 10M bots.
- cvwright 4y ago
  I think the idea is that it shifts the incentives. Sure, a rich nation state could buy tons of bot accounts at $10 a pop. But is that still the most rational path to their goal? Probably not, because there are lots of other things you can do for $100M.

DeanWormer 4y ago

This was the strategy at the SomethingAwful forums. They seemed pretty well moderated, but definitely never hit the scale of Reddit or Twitter.

v64 4y ago
Having posted there in its heyday, it made for an interesting self-moderation dynamic for sure. Before I posted something totally offbase that I knew I'd be punished for, I had to think "is saying this stupid shit really worth $10 to me?". Many times that was enough to get me to pause (but sometimes you also can't help yourself and it's well worth the price).

pclmulqdq 4y ago

This kind of thing worked for a few forums that tried it before FB/Twitter came around.