Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlexMax | Hacker News Reader

> highly engaged moderation

This in particular. It took me a very long time to recognize how important this was, but looking back the very best social spaces I've ever been in have all had reasonable standards of moderation with moderators who actually paid attention to the various conversations going on. That's not to say that all spaces with moderation standards are good, but I can't think of a worthwhile social network with hands-off or primarily user-driven moderation.

Trouble is, we haven't figured out a way to scale "good moderation" up to something like Facebook scale, and organizing a mass exodus from large social space is a lot harder to do en mass unless you have a Digg v4-scale unforced error.

View on HN

Trouble is, we haven't figured out a way to scale "good moderation"

I’m not so sure we need it. Isn’t it okay if we have different, small communities with different interests? Like I’m not sure if society actually needs a community as large as Facebook.

Sure, Zuck believes in it, but I think he’s somewhat naïve for doing so. Different people need different spaces.

A karma system and/or paid accounts, which will discourage people from breaking the rules (because they now have something tangible to lose, either their high-karma account or the money they paid for it).

The karma system can also reduce the amount of content needed to moderate because low-karma users will be limited by the system (to limit the potential damage from a fresh malicious account) while the high-karma users are more or less trusted because they have much to lose by breaking the rules.

People tend to downvote posts with opinions they don't like. So eventually there'll be only one opinion in a given community. I saw it happening more than once.

On a good account, downvotes for unpopular opinions would still be balanced with upvotes from the popular opinions. I often post stuff that goes against the mainstream in here and my karma is still good despite taking the occasional hit.

I agree that the system isn't perfect (it would fail if you only post unpopular - but otherwise valid and within the rules - opinions), but wouldn't it still be better than the current situation?

> A karma system

Upvoting and downvoting can and have been gamed by users and groups of users. It's a fine distraction to drive engagement in a social media space, but you cannot delegate moderation to the crowd without it turning into hot mess.

> and/or paid accounts.

At some point this might have been a good idea, but it doesn't stop bad actors from joining or returning through credit card fraud.

- - -

Have you looked at tildes? It's a reddit/HN-style site, but with stronger moderation and no downvote button. But the most interesting feature is that you have to be invited to the site by somebody, and the chain of invites is tracked, so if there are a bunch of troublemakers that all seem to have a root at one individual, the moderators can get rid of the whole tree if need-be.

> it doesn't stop bad actors from joining or returning through credit card fraud.

It still raises the barrier to entry significantly. Stolen credit cards are not free to obtain, either you buy them off someone else for $$$ or you obtain them for free through your own means but then you're losing $$$ by wasting them on spam accounts instead of selling them for actual money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com