11 ms·

>> move slowly and moderate heavily Yep. This is what is really needed for civil discussion. It is hard to work with otherwise as you get what my local small

>> move slowly and moderate heavily Yep. This is what is really needed for civil discussion. It is hard to work with otherwise as you get what my local small town FB feed normally is like. We are past the limit of peak assholery that only a system like that can even begin to filter things down. For example: Tiny local news source posted about an accident on the highway on a FB feed yesterday afternoon. Top 3 FB comments were about one of the people involved in the accident and blaming them because of the color of their skin, so he probably caused it. Over 50% of the posts were racist and semi racist rants spewing everything ranging from 'he was most likely going to a drug deal' to 'this is why we shouldn't let them out of the nearby city'. 10% were normal 'oh, that is why it was messed up.' 5% were 'wtf, calm down racists' and those posts got major responses about 'get out of my small town if you don't like it'. Seriously.

Log_out_ 2y ago
Add a shadowban fprum branch with a educational ChatGpt instance reforming trolls
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Moderating heavily just means that the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions. We already have that, it is called Reddit. I’m not sure that is a solution. Maybe you can claim that there is less conflict, but in reality it just turns into a one sided echo chamber.
- bouncyhouse 2y ago
  [flagged]
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Truth is clearly subjective. If you don’t believe that, you’ve not studied history or believe too strongly in your chosen tribal beliefs. I don’t have to rehash this - if you’re curious read about it. But briefly, most of the words you use like bigotry or racism or violence or fantasies are all totally subjective, frequently misused, and completely inappropriate as tools to suppress speech in any free society.
    - krapp 2y ago
      If you believe these words are misused, that implies you recognize a context in which they can be used properly, eg that concepts like "violence" and "racism" have specific, commonly understood meanings and are not "all totally subjective."
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        I see what you’re saying but also don’t think I totally agree. I count purposeful ambiguity and purposeful false equivalence between situations that aren’t describable by the same words as misuse. But to answer more directly - those two terms have had historical definitions that were more clear, but have been manipulated recently for activist purposes. For example the word “racism” is now thought by many (on the progressive left) to mean any inequality of outcomes because of Kendi’s writings on “anti racism” and the DEI movement (the E being for equity).
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      Truth in the philosophical sense is subjective but this is simultaneously true and completely useless. We deal with the universe usefully only by putting a limit on the fuzziness we accept. > Bigotry or racism or violence or ... are all totally subjective These are all trivially objectively defined to the satisfaction of reasonable parties. What you do to people who try to deliberately play in the margins and rules lawyer is just save time by banning them right off. > completely inappropriate as tools to suppress speech in any free society You can't do any of them on this forum because a forum that allowed it would be trash and we wouldn't be having this reasonable discussion there. It's completely reasonable for a society to limit dialogue around open bigotry and violence. You push said discussion out of the public eye where its both less apt to spread and less likely by dint of its secrecy to seem to others like a reasonable and acceptable thing. Note how hard it is to promote your shit via Gab vs Youtube.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > A forum where you can't promote bigotry, fascism, violence, or outright fantasies is a healthier forum. HN is that forum, yet HN isn't an echo chamber there are still plenty of healthy discussions including most sides. When reddit turned into an echo chamber that wasn't a good thing.
    - fake-name 2y ago
      > yet HN isn't an echo chamber Wait, you think HN isn't an echo chamber? That's amazing.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        When you come from an echo chamber then a fair place will look like an echo chamber against your views. I've seen posts from most views get upvoted to the top here. Compare to for example r/politics, I've never ever seen a conservative post get even close to the top there. That is what an echo chamber looks like, here on HN you will get exposed to good arguments from most sides.
        HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        But HN objectively is an echo chamber.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      HN is a horrible echo chamber. Are you serious?
    - foldr 2y ago
      I mean you actually can promote bigotry and even fascism on here as long as you’re civil about it. Fascists often have a hard time being civil, but bigots can be very adept at it.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        No, you can be a bigot and fascist and talk about what you think, but I've never seen fascism or bigotry causes being promoted here. Stating your opinion isn't the same thing as promoting a cause.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions You mean on individual subreddits, or is this a snide jab at Reddit-the-company? I think a big part of how online moderation goes bad comes when secret moderation is permitted, which prevents a community-at-large from noticing or organizing against abusive behavior.
  - fasa99 2y ago
    >Does reddit thought-police subreddits, or do they thought police curate the site as a whole? Yes. 2 million updoots say this is the rightthink, reddit user, you want to think right don't you?
- kelnos 2y ago
  > Moderating heavily just means that the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions. They key is not to moderate based on content, but on tone. "Tone" isn't really a good word, because tone is hard to get through a textual medium. I think what I mean is that you moderate things like ad hominem attacks and people being disrespectful or uncivil. Criticism is fine as long as it's constructive and delivered respectfully. But you don't moderate based on what someone's views are. I know that's hard, and even people who actively try to watch their biases and avoid making decisions influenced by them will still screw up sometimes. But it's not impossible.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - pjc50 2y ago
      "Polite" racism is still racism. You can't really express the idea that certain people are inherently inferior to their faces without it being offensive, no matter what wording you choose.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        No? Tell a bunch of men that men are more likely to end up in prison because they're more likely to break the law and you won't see much disagreement, let alone offence taking. Well functioning societies define politeness very narrowly. It's about please and thankyou, not yelling, and other mechanical aspects unrelated to the content. The definition you're using here leads to forum outcomes like not being able to discuss workout techniques because that might imply there's such a thing as an ideal weight, or not being able to talk about last weekend's hike because enjoying the countryside is a dog-whistle for racism (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countryside-racist-white-space-charities-claim/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countrys...). Once you decide that discussing group differences is impolite and therefore verboten, the only logical outcome is to conclude that there is no reason for any group differences to exist, but they do which means it must be due to oppression. In other words, defining politeness that way ends in requiring everyone to be Marxist. That has outcomes that are objectively worse than societies that use a narrow definition (e.g. compare hunger levels in America vs North Korea). It's perfectly reasonable to set up a forum where everyone is required to be committed to the tenets of Marxism under the guise of politeness, but you can't have such a forum and also have it be intellectually curious or truth seeking.
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
The challenge is that there’s no such thing as equitable moderation to the satisfaction of an increasingly large group.
- Uehreka 2y ago
  I think the general policy of “if you want to say stuff like that go to a lava pit like Gab where they affirmatively want to hear it” is good and should just be the moderation policy in any mainstream situation. People who say outright racist stuff like that are generally a highly vocal minority who often end up pushing away the less vocal normies who make up most of the audience.
  - colingoodman 2y ago
    I agree with this. I think of the few websites where moderation truly is very light such as 4chan and how the discussion on those websites can get truly disturbing. Even the fairly innocuous boards dedicated to the discussion of hobbies are full of slurs and insults. I greatly appreciate free speech in principle and don’t have any problem with websites like 4chan existing, but those spaces don’t feel conducive to the kind of thing the article talks about. The free speech absolutists in these comments seem to disparage the heavy handed moderation tactics on this neighbor forum, but it sounds like that kind of management is working out extremely well for it.
_heimdall 2y ago
I totally get your concerns with discourse online quickly going to unhelpful or seemingly dangerous areas, we've all seen it. If the only solution is moderation though, aka censorship, I'd argue that the real problem is the medium itself and not how we're using it. It seems totally reasonable that having meaningful and useful dialog via a medium that allows anonymous participation may just not work. Censorship is an extremely dangerous road. It often starts out well intentioned, as is the road to hell and all that. There were very important reasons the US founding fathers specifically carved out free speech as a fundamental right. Without it, censorship will inevitably used against the public. If censorship is the only way to have discussions online then we should just give up on that fantasy and have instead have meaningful conversations in public, say on your front porch with those that live in your community.
- fragmede 2y ago
  There are already censors, just try and post a copy of the latest Disney movie or CSAM. The sooner we acknowledge that there are censors, the sooner we can figure out how to have constructive discussion online.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Of course there are already censors, and I'd say that's a problem. Sharing CSAM or a copyright protected media file isn't speech though, and isn't protected by free speech laws.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Creating CSAM and posting it online is certainly speech, though, just as much as posting a legal form of original artwork is. But I'm 100% fine with the person responsible for that CSAM being censored and prosecuted, by the government, and that's exactly what will happen.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        If you extend speech protections to cover creating and distributing CSAM you open the flood gates to a mountain of other actions that are crimes today. What is the difference in creating CSAM and creating heroine that would make the former free speech and the later a crime?

Log_out_ 2y ago

Add a shadowban fprum branch with a educational ChatGpt instance reforming trolls

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Moderating heavily just means that the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions. We already have that, it is called Reddit. I’m not sure that is a solution. Maybe you can claim that there is less conflict, but in reality it just turns into a one sided echo chamber.

bouncyhouse 2y ago
[flagged]
michaelmrose 2y ago
[flagged]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Truth is clearly subjective. If you don’t believe that, you’ve not studied history or believe too strongly in your chosen tribal beliefs. I don’t have to rehash this - if you’re curious read about it. But briefly, most of the words you use like bigotry or racism or violence or fantasies are all totally subjective, frequently misused, and completely inappropriate as tools to suppress speech in any free society.
  - krapp 2y ago
    If you believe these words are misused, that implies you recognize a context in which they can be used properly, eg that concepts like "violence" and "racism" have specific, commonly understood meanings and are not "all totally subjective."
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      I see what you’re saying but also don’t think I totally agree. I count purposeful ambiguity and purposeful false equivalence between situations that aren’t describable by the same words as misuse. But to answer more directly - those two terms have had historical definitions that were more clear, but have been manipulated recently for activist purposes. For example the word “racism” is now thought by many (on the progressive left) to mean any inequality of outcomes because of Kendi’s writings on “anti racism” and the DEI movement (the E being for equity).
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    Truth in the philosophical sense is subjective but this is simultaneously true and completely useless. We deal with the universe usefully only by putting a limit on the fuzziness we accept. > Bigotry or racism or violence or ... are all totally subjective These are all trivially objectively defined to the satisfaction of reasonable parties. What you do to people who try to deliberately play in the margins and rules lawyer is just save time by banning them right off. > completely inappropriate as tools to suppress speech in any free society You can't do any of them on this forum because a forum that allowed it would be trash and we wouldn't be having this reasonable discussion there. It's completely reasonable for a society to limit dialogue around open bigotry and violence. You push said discussion out of the public eye where its both less apt to spread and less likely by dint of its secrecy to seem to others like a reasonable and acceptable thing. Note how hard it is to promote your shit via Gab vs Youtube.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > A forum where you can't promote bigotry, fascism, violence, or outright fantasies is a healthier forum. HN is that forum, yet HN isn't an echo chamber there are still plenty of healthy discussions including most sides. When reddit turned into an echo chamber that wasn't a good thing.
  - fake-name 2y ago
    > yet HN isn't an echo chamber Wait, you think HN isn't an echo chamber? That's amazing.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      When you come from an echo chamber then a fair place will look like an echo chamber against your views. I've seen posts from most views get upvoted to the top here. Compare to for example r/politics, I've never ever seen a conservative post get even close to the top there. That is what an echo chamber looks like, here on HN you will get exposed to good arguments from most sides.
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        But HN objectively is an echo chamber.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    HN is a horrible echo chamber. Are you serious?
  - foldr 2y ago
    I mean you actually can promote bigotry and even fascism on here as long as you’re civil about it. Fascists often have a hard time being civil, but bigots can be very adept at it.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      No, you can be a bigot and fascist and talk about what you think, but I've never seen fascism or bigotry causes being promoted here. Stating your opinion isn't the same thing as promoting a cause.
Terr_ 2y ago
> the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions You mean on individual subreddits, or is this a snide jab at Reddit-the-company? I think a big part of how online moderation goes bad comes when secret moderation is permitted, which prevents a community-at-large from noticing or organizing against abusive behavior.
- fasa99 2y ago
  >Does reddit thought-police subreddits, or do they thought police curate the site as a whole? Yes. 2 million updoots say this is the rightthink, reddit user, you want to think right don't you?
kelnos 2y ago
> Moderating heavily just means that the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions. They key is not to moderate based on content, but on tone. "Tone" isn't really a good word, because tone is hard to get through a textual medium. I think what I mean is that you moderate things like ad hominem attacks and people being disrespectful or uncivil. Criticism is fine as long as it's constructive and delivered respectfully. But you don't moderate based on what someone's views are. I know that's hard, and even people who actively try to watch their biases and avoid making decisions influenced by them will still screw up sometimes. But it's not impossible.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pjc50 2y ago
    "Polite" racism is still racism. You can't really express the idea that certain people are inherently inferior to their faces without it being offensive, no matter what wording you choose.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      No? Tell a bunch of men that men are more likely to end up in prison because they're more likely to break the law and you won't see much disagreement, let alone offence taking. Well functioning societies define politeness very narrowly. It's about please and thankyou, not yelling, and other mechanical aspects unrelated to the content. The definition you're using here leads to forum outcomes like not being able to discuss workout techniques because that might imply there's such a thing as an ideal weight, or not being able to talk about last weekend's hike because enjoying the countryside is a dog-whistle for racism (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countryside-racist-white-space-charities-claim/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countrys...). Once you decide that discussing group differences is impolite and therefore verboten, the only logical outcome is to conclude that there is no reason for any group differences to exist, but they do which means it must be due to oppression. In other words, defining politeness that way ends in requiring everyone to be Marxist. That has outcomes that are objectively worse than societies that use a narrow definition (e.g. compare hunger levels in America vs North Korea). It's perfectly reasonable to set up a forum where everyone is required to be committed to the tenets of Marxism under the guise of politeness, but you can't have such a forum and also have it be intellectually curious or truth seeking.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

The challenge is that there’s no such thing as equitable moderation to the satisfaction of an increasingly large group.

Uehreka 2y ago
I think the general policy of “if you want to say stuff like that go to a lava pit like Gab where they affirmatively want to hear it” is good and should just be the moderation policy in any mainstream situation. People who say outright racist stuff like that are generally a highly vocal minority who often end up pushing away the less vocal normies who make up most of the audience.
- colingoodman 2y ago
  I agree with this. I think of the few websites where moderation truly is very light such as 4chan and how the discussion on those websites can get truly disturbing. Even the fairly innocuous boards dedicated to the discussion of hobbies are full of slurs and insults. I greatly appreciate free speech in principle and don’t have any problem with websites like 4chan existing, but those spaces don’t feel conducive to the kind of thing the article talks about. The free speech absolutists in these comments seem to disparage the heavy handed moderation tactics on this neighbor forum, but it sounds like that kind of management is working out extremely well for it.

_heimdall 2y ago

I totally get your concerns with discourse online quickly going to unhelpful or seemingly dangerous areas, we've all seen it. If the only solution is moderation though, aka censorship, I'd argue that the real problem is the medium itself and not how we're using it. It seems totally reasonable that having meaningful and useful dialog via a medium that allows anonymous participation may just not work. Censorship is an extremely dangerous road. It often starts out well intentioned, as is the road to hell and all that. There were very important reasons the US founding fathers specifically carved out free speech as a fundamental right. Without it, censorship will inevitably used against the public. If censorship is the only way to have discussions online then we should just give up on that fantasy and have instead have meaningful conversations in public, say on your front porch with those that live in your community.

fragmede 2y ago
There are already censors, just try and post a copy of the latest Disney movie or CSAM. The sooner we acknowledge that there are censors, the sooner we can figure out how to have constructive discussion online.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Of course there are already censors, and I'd say that's a problem. Sharing CSAM or a copyright protected media file isn't speech though, and isn't protected by free speech laws.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Creating CSAM and posting it online is certainly speech, though, just as much as posting a legal form of original artwork is. But I'm 100% fine with the person responsible for that CSAM being censored and prosecuted, by the government, and that's exactly what will happen.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      If you extend speech protections to cover creating and distributing CSAM you open the flood gates to a mountain of other actions that are crimes today. What is the difference in creating CSAM and creating heroine that would make the former free speech and the later a crime?