Hacker News Reader

Comment by taeric | Hacker News Reader

This seems somewhat disproven by the existence of places like this? Strict moderation really does work wonders to prevent some of the worst behaviors.

Not that you won't have problems, even here, from time to time. But it is hard to argue that things aren't kept much more civil than in other spots?

And, in general, avoiding direct capital incentives to drive any questionable behavior seems a pretty safe route?

I would think this would be a lot like public parks and such. Disallow some commercial behaviors and actually enforce rules, and you can keep some pretty nice places?

View on HN

I generally agree that strict moderation is the key but there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible - ycombinator user activity is next to nothing compared to sites like Facebook/twitter/reddit. Even on Reddit, you see smaller subreddits able to achieve this.

But just like a public park, if 2 million people rock up it's going to be next to impossible to police effectively.

> there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible

Not really. If 5 people can moderate 1000, surely 5000 can moderate 1 million. Divide et impera, it's not a new idea.

Just keep in mind that in a free market there is supposed to be no profit. If there is, then something is wrong. In this case the companies just don't feel like moderating and following laws.

I'm sure that some of this is influenced by the behavior of the people being moderated? Back to the parks example, it is usually assumed most visitors are in good faith. If there is expectation otherwise, things are usually a bit tougher.

For parks, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that people have to physically be there. That alone is a bit of a moderating factor, I would presume. With online, even 5 people can't moderate 1000 bad faith collaborators?

I don't know that we truly have a way to ensure "person is on other side of this account." And in places that are made to be interfaced from corporations, that isn't even strictly the desire.

Yes, that probably also claims a factor.

What I was arguing was that employing enough people to moderate should be just cost of business. If that would cost to much there should simply be no business. However the big social media business are right now far from going bankrupt.

Agreed. I meant my post to be an "in addition" for your argument. With the concession that I'm sure there are differences in scale.

I believe that in most networks, there’s at least some level of moderation to prevent the worst behavior. But beyond that, moderation becomes a much trickier issue.

When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to avoid a brawl. Even then, heated arguments aren’t uncommon.

In an environment where one person’s truth can be another’s misinformation, I’m not sure moderation can ever be applied in a way that satisfies everyone involved.

I think a key facet of good moderation is that it doesn't have to be on content, specifically. Behavior is often more troublesome. We can smirk about "tone police," but it really can make a huge difference.

Yes, but that too is nuanced. There are, of course, clear-cut cases of unacceptable behavior that are already moderated as such. However, when you have people coming together from hundreds, if not thousands, of cultures and backgrounds, I doubt there’s a single set of rules that works for everyone. It ultimately becomes another question of where we draw the line.

Agreed.

I'll go further and say that I doubt there is a single set of static rules that will work for anyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com