this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Technology
37713 readers
512 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You know, I've had an idea fermenting for some time now around how content moderation at scale might work. I have no idea if it's feasible, or not, nor do I have the technical expertise to bring it to fruition but I think the following pertinent points lead towards the capability of content moderation at scale:
When all of this combines, it makes you wonder if content moderation couldn't be accomplished more akin to how a small town might deal with a problematic individual - which is to say lots of small interactions with the problematic person, with some people helping, others chastising, some educating, their actions being more monitored, etc. How does this translate to a digital environment? That's the part I'm still trying to figure out. Perhaps comments that are problematic can be flagged by other users, such as in existing systems, but maybe this can fall into a queue where regular users or community members can vote on how appropriate it was and based on some kind of credit system (perhaps influenced by how much these people contribute or receive positive feedback in that particular community) determining the outcome of said comment. As it is, many of the conversational parts of this community feedback already happen (people both arguing with or pushing back against and educating or attempting to help). A system might even encourage or link up users with appropriate self-flagged educators who can talk directly with problematic individuals to help them learn and grow. Honestly, I don't know all the specifics, but I think it's interesting to think about.
One thing I think is interesting is how tildes.net is planning to handle moderation.
Basically - they give you broad powers initially, and take them away from you if you show yourself you can't be trusted. So if you report a user and it's a bad-faith report, they can ding you. If you keep making bad-faith reports, then over time you lose the ability to create reports at all.
By contrast - if you repeatedly prove to make good reports, and your reports are usually actioned upon, you become "trusted" over time and your reports may cause content to be removed as soon as you report it. (And of course - if a moderator restores a post that you got removed, that counts as a ding against you.)
Over time, trusted users get hand-picked to become moderators. This has the ability to create "power users", of course, but a moderator that acts in bad faith can become less trusted over time and potentially loses their privileges. The thought is that the risk of power users is less than the detriment of an unmoderated community.
They've talked about that for years yet they've also slowly become more and more rationalist and Deimos has withdrawn from interacting with the website more and more over time. Their ethos is part of where my thoughts come from, but until they actually decide to take that seriously (or even fight the slowly encroaching rationalism which pushed the minority voice off their website), I can't in good conscience put any stock into their website.