SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We recently discussed reddit's woes and the hiring of a new CEO. However, we have seen communities come and go for many years.
Clay Shirky wrote about his experience in 1978: "Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue... And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. ... the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. ... the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom."
There are two clear trends. One is that less input and customization tends to grow bigger. Note how Geocities was replaced with Myspace which was then replaced with Facebook and Twitter. These newer systems take away personal freedom of expression and makes people follow a 'prescribed' system, albeit an easier one to use. The other trend is that communities that try to be truly free and open end up either stifled by that openness or give up. The only obvious exception is a platform that allows us to simply filter out everything we don't want to see, which becomes a series of the feared echo chamber. With the excessive amount of data and the build up of complex rules on how information is shared, where does this leave us? It seems that like the famous iron triangle allowing free (and legal) speech with the possibility of diverse opinions, a cohesive group, and growth only allows you to pick two.
It seems to me this is a wicked problem, perhaps unsolvable. But I wonder if the community thinks there are other design options? Is this even possible with human nature as it is?
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday July 20 2015, @07:44AM
The problem with karama is that it is vulnerable to modbombing. I had that happen to me on Slashdot recently when MRAs were going nuts on the Ask Brianna Wu story. A quick email to the admins fixed it (I've been one of the top posters for years, they could see that two accounts were systematically attacking me) but my point is that it's not immune to abuse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Monday July 20 2015, @07:21PM
I've been wondering about what would happen with a different moderation system -- it would have to keep track of who moderated which post, and build up something like a web of trust but for moderation. However, it would need some sort of division into groups, which in English would summarize to "respected modder for Republicans" or "respected modder for copyright fanatics" etc. Also, every user would get mod points but by using the mod points they separate themselves into those groups. The objective of this would be to build a leaky echo chamber where easily offended people are exposed to mostly things they agree with, but also to the best of things they disagree with -- and people who don't mod themselves into an echo chamber, of course, get to see a more balanced set of views. (The mod system might also need to examine the content of the post for key words and phrases, so that what it suspects to be a "disagree" mod gets positive karma when viewed from the opposite side).
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 23 2015, @01:30PM