[HN Gopher] An announcement about the comment section
___________________________________________________________________
An announcement about the comment section
Author : raphlinus
Score : 92 points
Date : 2021-06-28 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blogs.sciencemag.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blogs.sciencemag.org)
| wyattjoh wrote:
| Quite a good analogy by The Coral Project[0] on similar problems
| faced by other organizations with comment sections on their sites
| https://guides.coralproject.net/the-empty-box/
|
| Edit: Adding this other source for some more deep details
| https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01119
|
| [0]: https://coralproject.net/
| crazydoggers wrote:
| Hear, hear!
|
| Now we just need HN to follow suit.
|
| There's nothing wrong with editorializing comment sections. Not
| every comment section on the web needs to encourage voices from
| every side in the name of free speech.
|
| I think websites perhaps should start to create "comment section
| covenant" that outline how subjects are handled. Ie
|
| No ad hominem
|
| No misinformation
|
| No conspiracies
|
| All comments failing will be deleted
|
| Etc etc
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I agree, anyone pushing against our free speech rights should
| be censored!
|
| Sarcasm aside, there is no man fit to play the censor. Real
| life is too complex to oblige by naive rules.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| > _Real life is too complex to oblige by naive rules._
|
| The comment section of a website is not real life. You don't
| have "rights" here, you're allowed to use the site according
| to its terms. The servers, this site are private property,
| and the owners get to set the rules.
|
| So it's not playing censor, it's editorializing. You're free
| to comment other places. I can and will choose sites that
| moderate voices that I don't want to deal with.
|
| You can say that, "we'll, this will cause silos", but this
| experiment of everyone making any comments they want and
| everyone having to listen is a failure. It has only further
| divided people because the internet comment section is not
| the place to convert and educate people, so people just get
| more entrenched. You're unlikely to be swayed by this comment
| for example.
|
| I for one am tired of it. I want comment sections that deal
| with people of a certain educational level, intelligence, and
| point of view. I don't want to deal with incels, psychopaths,
| people without formal education etc.
|
| If you think internet comments are a right and moderating
| them is censorship, then yes, I want your comments gone from
| the sites I want to use and where I go to have conversations
| with intelligent people.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| So you want an echo chamber? I mean, that's fine if that's
| your goal but at least be direct. Also realize echo
| chambers are bad - they reinforce opinions on an identity
| basis, not a truth basis.
|
| Censorship can still happen on private property. That does
| not, per se, determine right or wrong. Nobody objects that
| kids websites don't allow pornography.
|
| We can also still object to censorship, even if it's on
| private property. You don't have some a right to be immune
| to criticism.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| I mean, in this case the definition of echo chamber is
| meaningless, if an echo chamber consists of "non-incel,
| non-psychopath, non-uneducated people".
| crazydoggers wrote:
| The term "echo chamber" at this point is almost
| meaningless.
|
| What constitutes an echo chamber. Where is the line? If
| you don't allow hate speech, is that an echo chamber? If
| you don't allow misinformation, or lies, or conspiracy
| theories, is that echo chamber?
|
| To me, avoiding those things is the basis of any positive
| communication.
|
| Again, the alternative: "echo free", all points of view
| are equal, actually does no one any good, because
| comments sections aren't a place to share and be open to
| points of view. Unmoderated sites, and echo free almost
| always end up a place for people to harass others.
|
| The internet is different than face to face. There are
| few to no consequences for bad behavior, and that
| includes spouting political, and religious ideology in
| settings and situations that no one wants it. If someone
| sat down at your table and started spouting some of the
| stuff that goes around comments, you'd be pretty upset.
|
| So if I get to choose a table at a nice restaurant with
| nice courteous people, why can't I choose the same on a
| website?
|
| If I go to a science mag blog I don't want anti science,
| anti vaccine, anti evolution conversations. Those are
| settled issues in my book.
|
| Maybe to some people, that means I'm in an "echo chamber"
| but honestly to me it simply means my bar for
| conversations is much much higher. And if someone can't
| meet it they're not invited to my table.
|
| And if a place of patronage allows anyone to come in and
| harass its customers, because "feee speech" and
| preventing "echo chambers" I go elsewhere.
|
| I've spent to much time on HN for instance dealing with
| misinformation or as you put it "non truth based" and for
| me that means things that are not verifiable, non
| factual, based primarily in prejudice. I usually come to
| HN to read technology and science news, and have come to
| expect a level of discussion that includes a certain
| level of intelligence. However on many occasions I end up
| seeing comments hashing out the same old prejudiced
| political view points over and over. So my use of HN has
| dropped and will probably continue to drop. Mostly I scan
| comments rather than read most of them as I used to.
|
| I'm sure at some point everyone will get tired of these
| echo free chambers because they are simply too draining.
| They lead to anger and angst when actually having to deal
| with other's view points in the real world.
|
| Echo free leads to more polarization, not less. The
| Facebook/Twitter era has more than proved that.
|
| Edit: Another area I'm tired of dealing with in
| comments.l: moderation being called "censorship".
| Censorship requires an authority that can prohibit
| behavior at a public level. Asking people to behave, act,
| or talk in specific ways is not "censorship", especially
| when it's done in a private sphere, as on a website's
| comment section. You're free to do or say things in your
| private space without my interference, but you don't get
| to enforce that on my private space or a websites private
| space. Calling comment moderation "censorship" is so
| disconnected from the actual history of true censorship,
| it's an insult to the word.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| An echo chamber is any social group that repeatedly
| reinforces one set of viewpoints amongst themselves. Echo
| chambers usually form accidentally - any dissenting
| voices to a narratove leave or are forced out and you end
| up with a single religious narrative.
|
| An open comment section is an open room. Each comment,
| and each commentor, is acting individually. There aren't
| really narratives because there's not enough cooperation
| to build one, if things are working well.
|
| As a recent example, consider the lab leak theory for
| covid. This was perfectly credible to begin with, was
| parroted by some bad faith actors, deemed a conspiracy
| theory and actually censored and removed from several
| sites.. and now we have really good evidence to suggest
| it may have been the origin of covid.
|
| In an echo chamber, you remove the truth. In an open room
| the truth can always exist, even if it's hidden.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| > _any dissenting voices to a narratove leave or are
| forced out and you end up with a single religious
| narrative._
|
| Religion has nothing to do with it. You don't need to
| enforce or end up with a single "religious narrative".
| For example a comment section on a science mag under an
| article about particle physics doesn't need to talk about
| religion at all. People of all walks of faith can talk
| openly. Not allowing others to harass people with a
| religious viewpoint is the basis of freedom of religion.
|
| Your lab leak theory is a great example of this exact
| problem, because it's full of misinformation, almost
| certainly learned from social media. Scientist don't
| "rule out" or "censor" competing hypothesis. It just
| doesn't work that way. If you have data that supports a
| lab leak, then you publish and people do further
| research. Only in the public social media talk did it
| take the form of "science and truth being censored"
| primarily due to the public's poor understanding of how
| science functions.
|
| > _In an echo chamber, you remove the truth_ "
|
| This just logically makes no sense. Let's say by your
| definition an echo chamber forces out competing
| narratives. If it forces out the narrative that the earth
| is flat, it in no way has removed the truth. By your
| definition I've created an echo chamber that only
| "believes" in a non flat earth, and yet truth remains.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The use of "religious" in my comment might be better
| phrased as "dogmatic".
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Obviously we've had plenty of discussions about censorships and
| online fora and I've got nothing to add there.
|
| But does this strike anyone as specifically anti-science? If
| science is a process that's continually open to revision and re-
| examination, it seems like claiming a right to ban wrongthink
| goes directly against that part of the philosophy. What good is
| it to claim to be evidence-based if you also claim the ability to
| censor evidence that you've decided, a priori, that doesn't fit
| your desired narrative?
|
| I mean it's one thing to allow political discussions to be
| moderated but it seems like science claims a particular
| philosophy that must be open to challenge, right?
| epgui wrote:
| "continually open to revision and re-examination"
|
| Absolutely, but your main point is moot. When you're wrong,
| sometimes you're just wrong. Science is not supposed to
| accommodate bad ideas, and the arbiters of science are people.
| Usually, very smart and discerning people.
|
| When you delete stupid things that don't make sense, it's
| called tidying up, not censoring. People just have a hard time
| accepting that their ideas objectively suck, and that really
| shouldn't be surprising.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I disagree, mostly on the grounds that it takes very little
| effort to challenge something, and a _lot_ more effort to
| correctly respond to that challenge.
|
| Honestly, I'm curious what you think a solution might be that
| would respect this basic fact of argumentation.
| aliasEli wrote:
| Yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
| wccrawford wrote:
| If the commenters are looking to do science, they can publish
| their own studies.
|
| If they're looking to argue science, They can start their own
| blog.
|
| They aren't being censored or silenced. They're just being
| removed from a personal blog.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| This blog isn't science, it's a blog. People talking about
| science isn't science. Actual science still allows people to
| disprove results through peer reviewed studies and research.
| raphlinus wrote:
| You have to make a distinction between good faith and bad faith
| comments. The latter don't add to a scientific discussion or
| intellectual curiosity at all. Being openminded is one of the
| great virtues, especially for scientists, but it doesn't mean
| that when someone screams insults, you have to take seriously
| the possibility that they're true.
|
| I think the lack of that distinction is one of the nuances
| missing from much online communication these days. With bad
| faith comments, I try to downvote and move on, but any comment
| made in good faith, even and especially when I don't agree, is
| a good thing.
| iNane9000 wrote:
| If you want to make a website, that's your right in our free
| market system. If you want to allow the public to post on your
| website, to add value to your product, again that's your right.
| If it benefits your business, then you should do it. You can even
| moderate the comments to the point your website is inherently
| fraudulent. That's your right as it stands today.
|
| So to lament how one can't get only good comments, which disagree
| with your views only when your views are wrong, and then write
| long essays about how certain people will not comment the way you
| want them to, doesn't seem very practical.
|
| I've been reading troll comments, and many non troll but equally
| destructive and yet clearly well intentioned comments, for
| decades and that won't change as long as the internet is free.
| Accept that freedom or don't try to profit from it in the first
| place. Write books instead of blogs.
| Huwyt_Nashi047 wrote:
| I don't particularly mind censorship, I acknowledge that it's a
| privilege that comes with power, but the attitude of these people
| is something else.
|
| They are cowards. They don't own it, they act like their hand is
| being forced. It's always "a shame it's come to this". It's never
| their responsibility, it's always the fault of those they
| disagree with.
|
| Unlike this current progressive/Zionist hegemony, I can't think
| of any powerful right/White/conservative movement that has acted
| in such an underhanded way towards its enemies. We own it. We ban
| and condemn, and tell you exactly why.
|
| When we censor, we are proud to censor, because we know it's
| right. Either these people don't feel the same, or they're
| deliberately antagonistic.
| afrcnc wrote:
| If news sites know what's good for them, they should be disabling
| the comments section asap
| freetime2 wrote:
| Why would disabling the comments section be good for them?
| Doesn't commenting increase engagement?
|
| Also - aren't we in the comments section of a news site right
| now? Are you suggesting that HN should disable comments?
| cousin_it wrote:
| I don't think content creators should be in the business of
| providing a "platform" to anyone but themselves. Ideally,
| commenting should be decentralized: if you want to comment on
| someone's post P, write a post on your site and mark it as a
| comment on P. Comment filtering should also be decentralized: if
| you want to see a filtered view of comments on someone's post
| (for example, only polite comments), run a filter in your
| browser, tuned to show you only polite comments. All filters only
| on receiving of information, and controlled only by the receiver
| of information. Nobody's filter should ever stomp on anyone
| else's right to receive information.
| syshum wrote:
| Someone tried that once, it was banned by everyone because it
| could not be controlled or censored to the level people want
| such a system to be, thus why things have to be centralized
| because control is more important
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Shouldn't you have written a post on your blog about the
| article, instead of posting here? And did you mark that post as
| "polite", so that my "polite" filter will grab it? It's a good
| thing I trust your tagging implicitly.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| How do you filter 'polite' from impolite comments? Sarcasm can
| be thinly veiled. Hateful comments can sound genuinely nice to
| a ML algorithm, but taken literally can paint people in a bad
| light.
|
| As for the real issue the article talks about, most
| misinformation comes from people bringing up things that nobody
| asked about. Nobody asked if the world is flat, nobody asked
| about vaccines. Nobody asks about race, but online video game
| lobbies are always harping on the issue.
|
| How do you filter out people who are clever enough trolls to
| game algorithmic filters?
| lhorie wrote:
| Blog pingbacks already exist for ages. The point of comment
| sections is to provide a convenient avenue for discussion close
| to the source.
|
| The problem, IMHO, is commenters seem to have become too
| entitled and forgot that comment sections are inherently "my
| house, my rules" spaces. It's a bit like shirts: yes you can
| take yours off, but not in my store. For the most part people
| are fine with that, and those who are not are seen as petulant
| and escorted out.
|
| I don't see the problem with bloggers purging their comment
| sections of even mildly off-topic banter; and they're certainly
| well justified to kick out trolls.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| A good example. What being entitled means is quite
| subjective. What's the problem with not wearing a shirt? What
| women wear nowadays would be considered indecent to the point
| of being illegal 100 years ago, but a man without a shirt is
| a big no-no.
| baby wrote:
| Had not heard of blog pingback in like a decade. These were
| awful and I'm glad we got rid of them :D
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Ideally, commenting should be done on sites like Reddit and HN.
| Someone posts an article, you have a Reddit link-post with
| comments, an HN link-post with comments, a lobste.rs link-post
| with comments, etc.
|
| Everyone's own blog post is a bit _too_ decentralized, there
| isn 't really a discussion. Comment filtering would be nice,
| but hard to implement, especially with context.
|
| Digg/reddit-based sites have their own community and (tbh)
| echo-chamber. So people form interesting discussions and
| respectful disagreements, instead of "hot takes" and flame
| wars.
|
| Heck, if the trolls want they can create their own site, where
| they bash random articles. But nobody else has to pay attention
| to their awful comments.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| All you really need is a newsreader or email thread with
| catchup
| o8r3oFTZPE wrote:
| Although I have never published a blog, I sometimes thought
| about how I might do it if I did. The "comments" could be
| treated like "letters" (to the editor). Comments could be
| treated as submissions, subject to prior approval before
| publication in the _next_ "issue" of the blog. The author of
| the blog (editor) would receive a copy of each comment, then
| decide whether to publish it. Human curation. (Of course the
| blog author could use automation to assist the review.) In sum,
| I would treat the blog similar to a pre-internet, printed
| publication. From what I have seen this is how we achieve some
| degree of quality control. (Most "content" on today's web is
| garbage.) However one thing I never liked about "letters to the
| editor" is that rarely are submissions published in their
| entirety or original form. Editors like to edit. As such, I
| would allow the public to publish, without prior approval, an
| ed25519 hash of their submitted comment on the blog. Then if
| after review the comment is published, they can claim
| attribution, and readers can be certain that the blog author
| did not edit the comment. If spammers or other people want to
| try to stuff obvious or hidden messages into ed25519 hashes, I
| think that would entertaining. There should be a bar that those
| submitting comments have to meet if they want to see their
| comment published. The blog author sets that bar. This is a
| service to the readers.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > ed25519 hash
|
| Ed25519 is a public key (usually signature) system, not a
| hash function. You're probably thinking of either a ed25519
| _signature_ , or a (for example) _sha512_ hash.
| duxup wrote:
| Everyone is supposed to write or run some sort of browser
| filter for 'polite'?
|
| How does that work?
| cousin_it wrote:
| My filter would probably be something like "reorder comments
| by personalized pagerank of their authors, computed over
| comment likes, with me as the root".
| kebman wrote:
| A friend of mine already invented a similar filter with the
| Informed Individual app. It's a filter based app where you
| can make purchases with filters that align with your own
| philosophy. So let's say you've got Celiac disease, and you
| just put on that filter to avoid foods that could hurt you.
| But it goes further. Say you're an avid environmentalist, and
| you could employ the filter of your organization for foods to
| avoid for political or environmental reasons.
| mdoms wrote:
| > if you want to see a filtered view of comments on someone's
| post (for example, only polite comments), run a filter in your
| browser, tuned to show you only polite comments
|
| Getting real "a miracle occurs"[0] vibes here.
|
| [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/jpallan/4633000725
| zatertip wrote:
| Always refreshing to come to the technobro website to get the
| technobro take on how to solve a social problem with technical
| means.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| What they're describing is precisely the model most bloggers
| wanted for comments in the early days of blogging (late 90s &
| early 2000s). Trackbacks, pingbacks, etc. and other protocols
| were devised to allow bloggers to reply to each other with
| posts and aggregate them all together. It's not some
| 'technobro' solution, it's a way to publish content without
| incurring all of the real costs of also publishing (and
| managing) discussion forums or comment sections.
|
| It unfortunately never really took off because Facebook came
| in and became the defacto platform for people to post and
| comment on things--essentially becoming a giant ad-funded
| discussion forum moderated by Facebook staff and volunteers.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| We're quibbling over made-up semantics, but I'd say
| proposing the utopian vision of the early 2000s internet
| falls squarely into technobro territory.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| trackbacks and pingbacks stopped working because they
| drowned in spam.
| gerikson wrote:
| Comment sections on big WP and Movable type blogs were a
| thing when Facebook was still growing.
|
| The march has been towards continued centralization. Disqus
| offered to offload busywork for bloggers - spam,
| identification etc.
|
| The "indieweb" is trying to bring back pingbacks etc.
| ta2163 wrote:
| Dissenter attempted this, and was quickly deplatformed.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The gangs who are promoting coronavirus comment spam create two
| kinds of victims.
|
| (1) are the people whose free speech is impaired by relentless
| toxic comments
|
| (2) are the posters themselves who will be increasingly isolated
| by their behavior and feeling persecuted. It is like the cult
| member who is driven into evangelism not to recruit new members
| but to become convinced that the outside world is corrupt.
|
| These will become increasingly radicalized and over the next few
| years will be recruited into more violent attacks and other forms
| of exploitation such as spending their income on scam alt-health
| supplements.
|
| The most difficult problem in all of this is the the type (2)
| victims and many observers will insist that their disingenuous
| communications be taken at face value which is absolutely
| exhausting for the the type (1) victims who really ought so say
| that we don't want to hear about their dog pills.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4
| xoa wrote:
| This post is as good a time as any to rant a bit about an
| extremely frustratingly and commonly forgotten bit of Free
| Speech: freedom of speech and association absolutely includes the
| freedom to NOT say or associate with something! It's both a
| positive _and_ a negative right. This seems like it should be
| rather intuitive. If someone points a gun at my head and demands
| I put up a sign support XYZ message on my property, is it not
| obvious that would violate my free speech rights? By the same
| token, my choosing to support a single message or limited set of
| messages, be it for a candidate, cause, or anything else,
| necessarily means my choosing to NOT support an infinite number
| of others (and most particularly messages contrary to the one(s)
| I support). And this is one case where it makes absolutely zero
| difference that the message is on my blog or website vs my lawn
| or the side of my barn. It is the essence of Free Speech that
| each person may direct their resources towards content-specific
| messages subjectively.
|
| So when Derek Lowe, or Hacker News, or Reddit or YouTube for that
| matter delete a comment, ban someone, or any other such action
| they're not censoring, they are ENGAGING in Free Speech. People
| are free to put out their own soap boxes and argue their cases
| before the public should they wish. But they don't have a right
| to other people's private property nor to an audience, and in
| fact that would be completely contrary to freedom. The point of
| Free Speech is as a _system_ to hopefully edge closer to truth
| and react to changing evidence, circumstances and societal shifts
| by keeping arguments and reactions within the realms of social,
| economic, and political consequences. Not force.
|
| > _but I don't like it on principle, either._
|
| He has nothing to apologize for. Banning people and deleting
| comments from his own soap box is itself part of the essence of
| Freedom of Speech. Everyone may react, and he can react to their
| reactions, and so on and so forth in a never ending dynamic
| system, all secure in that nobody may ever legally put a
| permanent end to the debate with violence. Yet for some reason a
| lot of otherwise very smart people have allowed a certain class
| of parasites, misanthropes, malicious/opportunistic
| authoritarians, and the lazy to make them feel bad about
| exercising their speech rights and even try to turn that back
| around on them.
|
| What's truly been worrying is to see that leak into the
| mainstream Republican Party, one of the two big American
| coalitions. The blatancy of the anti-Free Speech laws they're now
| passing at the state level is fairly horrifying.
|
| _EDIT_ : In an interesting bit of timing, arguments were just
| made in _NetChoice v. Moody_ regarding a preliminary injunction
| against the recent Florida law attempting to state regulate
| speech in networked spaces (unless you own a theme park). A
| number of different lawyers live followed it on twitter if anyone
| is interested [0, 1 amongst others]. Directly relevant to this
| discussion though.
|
| _EDIT 2_ : FWIW courts have faced these cases before, and for
| anyone interested in reading more on the legal side of things, a
| term to get you started in searches for court cases is "editorial
| discretion" and the exercise thereof, which were frequently
| fought in the realm of newspapers. An example covering some of
| this would be _Wisconsin Association of Nursing Homes, Inc. v.
| Journal Co. (1979)_. Editorial discretion is a core function of
| speech, since often choosing what not to say is at least as
| important as what to say.
|
| ----
|
| 0: https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1409563991974817800
|
| 1:
| https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/140956275829159936...
| captainoats wrote:
| I think you mean freedom of speech is only a negative right and
| not a positive right. You cannot compel anyone to enable your
| speech.
| xoa wrote:
| I considered not including that line at all, and I probably
| shouldn't have because "positive/negative right" definitions
| can get quite blurry and dependent on the chosen frame of
| reference. Particularly online tend to get into twisty
| definitional arguments none of which actually clarify
| anything. I was being lazy and meant it in that we all have
| the affirmative right to express ourselves as well as the
| right not to and to not be compelled to do so, but I suppose
| legally speaking it could all be under the heading of "the
| right to not have force used against one over speech". The
| world "compel" itself after all can also get blurry.
|
| At any rate, I won't edit that out, but it wasn't the best
| choice of words. If this was a paper, it wouldn't have made
| the second draft after I re-read it the next morning :).
| allochthon wrote:
| One of the hard problems of comment sections and forums is ad
| hom, incivility and lack of decorum. In cases of trolling and
| borderline behavior, it seems fine to just ban the offenders if
| there's a signup process. It would be nice to see more consensus
| around this. There's something to be said for freedom of speech
| when considered in context, but the manner of expressing oneself
| is largely orthogonal to what is said and has a lot of bearing on
| whether a conversation thread is fruitful or painful for the
| participants. It seems to me that in most cases a collaborative
| search for truth doesn't need to be painful.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| I've noticed a good model for discourse online is when people
| have to pay a small amount to be part of the group. The comments
| on a $1/month patreon are an order of magnitude better than in a
| free-for-all subreddit for example. Some places can buck this
| trend but it usually requires a huge burden and dedicated
| moderation staff (which doesn't come for free).
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree. Although it is true that comment
| politeness appears to improve behind a paywall, I also find
| that the diversity of opinion decreases, which tends to make
| the comments less interesting to read in the first place.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| I have a buddy who will DM Dungeons And Dragons games on Roll20
| with random strangers online. He charges $5 per person per
| campaign. That's not per game, $5 gets almost weekly sessions
| in a campaign that can go on for months.
|
| He doesn't do it to make any money. He says that the small fee
| entirely eliminated trolls, and almost entirely eliminated
| people who join for week 1 and never return.
| papito wrote:
| A tiny barrier of entry increases the quality of participators
| by a huge amount.
|
| Show me a thing that has not been defiled by opening it wide to
| the horror that is the average intelligence. Twitter and
| Facebook is a dumpster fire, ultimately destroying political
| discourse and locking almost half of the population in a
| dangerous alternate reality. They now turned violent and will
| continue to do so.
|
| Masses of hodlers are now destabilizing markets with their GME
| raids and crypto.
|
| Etc...
| mynameishere wrote:
| Anonymity is gone if you pay even 1 cent of course.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Pay with a coin.
| freddie_mercury wrote:
| I agree with you but I've been astounded at how many people
| I've seen paying for Substack subscriptions apparently for the
| sole purpose of disagreeing with everything single thing
| written by the author, often in not very polite ways that end
| up getting them banned.
| [deleted]
| IshKebab wrote:
| Maybe it filters for the people who _reeeally_ want to
| disagree with the author.
| gamacodre wrote:
| That makes a lot of sense. Taking it further, you could also
| introduce a sliding scale for comment volume, like $1 for <10
| comments/mo, $5 for up to 30 comments/mo, or the $100 "troll
| package" for up to 80 comments/mo.
| tptacek wrote:
| They probably are, but I think an underreported phenomenon here
| is that tendentious and annoying comments are
| disproportionately driven by a few outlier commenters, and when
| you ask for $1/mo, they'll pay just to have an entitlement to
| continue the behavior.
| dragontamer wrote:
| "Censorship" has become incredibly tiring as a topic lately.
| Sure, freedom of speech is important and all, but in video game
| circles, if the skirt-length of a female character is increased
| by a few inches, you'll get a bunch of trolls calling
| "censorship" of said character.
|
| Case in point: Dead or Alive 6 vs 5, or Guilty Gear Strive vs
| Xrd. Apparently "Sony" is the big bad and is forcing developers
| to cover up more female characters or something. I honestly don't
| care but... really, this sort of thing is coming up these days.
| (Actually, the newest costume change was Pyra & Mythra's costumes
| in Super Smash Bros Ultimate, now that I think of it).
|
| Its gotten ridiculous, and I can't trust the face of these
| "censorship" complaints very much anymore. Its like "Censorship"
| is used as a complain for anything and everything these days.
|
| -----------
|
| I think there can be a discussion about the appropriate amount of
| sexuality / sexiness in video game characters (especially the
| female characters). But as soon as the "censorship" trolls enter
| the discussion, its all over. Its just trolls all the way down,
| and the discussion dies.
|
| -------
|
| Anyway, I realize this is completely tangential to the discussion
| on this particular science blog. But I'm more of a video gamer,
| so I'm seeing more and more of this "censorship" talk around
| video game sites.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I think the complaint of "censorship" might have some basis if
| the reason why the company changed the character models is to
| comply with obscenity laws in the most conservative country in
| which that particular game will be distributed.
|
| There is a case to be made that in a world where creators sell
| their content globally, conservative regions with a lot of
| potential customers might influence content that ends up also
| being sold in liberal regions. This might not be censorship,
| exactly, but it is an annoying side-effect of a globalized
| information economy. Instead of the world opening up and
| becoming more liberal, it might actually end up becoming more
| conservative, if transnational corporations decide that
| catering to the lowest common denominator is a more profitable
| route.
|
| I suppose the workaround for consumers is the same as it is for
| movies - to avoid the content designed to appeal to the
| broadest audience, and seek out indie creators who are still
| willing to cater to a more local or specialized audience. In
| the mean time, I do think it's fair for consumers to advocate
| for generally more liberal themes in games, although I'm not
| sure the sexiness of an outfit is really the hill to die on.
| ttt0 wrote:
| What I find weird in our current status quo is how "sex work"
| and having an OnlyFans account is considered empowering, but a
| game about fictional characters like DOA is considered sexist
| and misogynist.
|
| I never played it, so I might be wrong, but isn't that why
| people play DOA in the first place? To see sexy women? So how's
| that trolling?
| slg wrote:
| >What I find weird in our current status quo is how "sex
| work" and having an OnlyFans account is considered
| empowering, but a game about fictional characters like DOA is
| considered sexist and misogynist.
|
| The difference is consent. A person is free to objectify
| themselves and doing so can be empowering. A person should be
| extremely cautious about creating fiction to objectify a
| group of people to which the author does not belong as this
| can be exploitative and have societal repercussions.
|
| I know next to nothing about the developers for the DOA
| franchise, but I am guessing there would be less controversy
| if the studio had a larger female presence.
| ttt0 wrote:
| What consent? We're talking about fictional characters
| here.
|
| Is Dwarf Fortress an immoral game, because the authors are
| not a part of groups like dwarfs, elves and goblins? And
| some in-game events may occur without the consent of those
| characters?
|
| edit: Got rate limited for some reason and can no longer
| respond, so I'm just going to edit this post:
|
| What does the "consent from the group" even mean? Do you
| have to make a poll, write to the CEO of Women(tm) or
| something? Seriously. Can I even include women if I'm
| making an amateur video game as a one-man effort (no pun
| intended), and I myself am not a woman?
|
| And for dragontamer, I guess you got your answer. I don't
| personally care about video games at all, but some people
| believe this is immoral and rape-like (no consent), so it's
| not surprising to me that someone calls it censorship and
| points out the parallels to back when people tried to
| censor violence in video games and whatnot.
|
| edit2:
|
| > You are free to make whatever game you want. The public
| is free to respond to your game however they want. You
| aren't going to get many complaints if you "even include
| women". If you objectify those women, you might get met
| with those complaints. If you were a women objectify women,
| you can at least claim that your are taking control of the
| objectification. That is viewed as a valid excuse by a lot
| of people much like how I mentioned people in a minority
| group are generally allowed to make jokes at that groups
| expense.
|
| So I should take it as roughly "the consent from the group
| means that the group isn't going to cancel you"? But if
| that's the case then why is it called "consent"? Isn't the
| entire point of consent to ask before you take action? It's
| like saying "I'm going to force you to have sex with me, if
| you don't go to the police then it means you consented to
| it". And from my understanding that's literally what rape
| culture is.
| slg wrote:
| >What does the "consent from the group" even mean? Do you
| have to make a poll, write to the CEO of Women(tm) or
| something? Seriously. Can I even include women if I'm
| making an amateur video game as a one-man effort (no pun
| intended), and I myself am not a woman?
|
| You are free to make whatever game you want. The public
| is free to respond to your game however they want. You
| aren't going to get many complaints if you "even include
| women". If you objectify those women, you might get met
| with those complaints. If you were a women objectify
| women, you can at least claim that your are taking
| control of the objectification. That is viewed as a valid
| excuse by a lot of people much like how I mentioned
| people in a minority group are generally allowed to make
| jokes at that groups expense.
| dragontamer wrote:
| I realize you're a stranger to this discussion. But
| you're coming in from the completely wrong angle here.
|
| The "controversy" of note is the group who are
| threatening boycotts unless more sexy costumes are added
| to Dead or Alive 6. They do this because they think that
| Sony is censoring the Dead or Alive 6 series (and other
| games). I'm grossly simplifying things here but... that's
| the gist.
|
| This discussion of objectification and/or consent is...
| simply not a thing in the Dead or Alive discussions I'm
| aware of. I mean, that discussion is going on, but that's
| more "Hot Tub Meta" and "ASMR / Ear Licking" streams, and
| kinda different.
|
| Is a grown woman allowed to dress up in a skimpy two
| piece bathing suit and then stream herself playing video
| games on Twitch? Even when consent is 100% clear (no one
| is forcing this streamer to do this. They want to partake
| in the hot tub meta), a large group of people decry the
| "objectification".
|
| So to answer your general question:
|
| > I know next to nothing about the developers for the DOA
| franchise, but I am guessing there would be less
| controversy if the studio had a larger female presence.
|
| You're 100% wrong about this. There are plenty of
| examples inside of the video game community where adult
| women with 100% consent and 100% control over their
| creative abilities choose to be sexy, but this sexiness
| invites controversy.
|
| Its definitely not about consent. Its not about worker
| treatment. The discussion is clearly about how much
| sexiness should be in video games (and surrounding media:
| such as "streamers" on Twitch).
| slg wrote:
| Consent from the group being objectified. It is the same
| reason that a person who belongs to a specific minority
| group is usually given free reign to tell jokes about
| that group while a person outside that minority isn't. It
| doesn't matter that the character in the joke isn't a
| real person.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Its pretty clear that all the women whose breasts were
| measured for DOA's breast physics consented to these
| effecs.
|
| Consent certainly isn't the issue here. This is 100% a
| "Sexiness" issue. DOA is a "sexy" game, including breast
| physics and precise measurements of "bounciness" in
| skimpy costumes.
|
| The discussion the DOA community needs is about how such
| "sex appeal" is relatively niche, and is a "turnoff" to
| some gamers. DOA6, which was striving for esports /
| mainstream acceptance is finding itself between a rock
| and a hard place.
|
| DOA has a history of being "that sexy game", which people
| don't want to associate with in public. On the other
| hand, to make a change in the marketing is somewhat of a
| betrayal to the fans who have supported DOA over the past
| few decades.
|
| ---------
|
| The underlying issue gets ignored because of 'censorship'
| worries. A game that markets itself with this kind of
| sexiness front-and-center cannot really become
| mainstream. Its too perverted for people to want to
| associate with in public.
| slg wrote:
| Not all consent is created equal. Consent from people who
| are at a power disparity is not the same as consent from
| people leading the project. The women having their
| breasts measured aren't exactly in a position to impact
| meaningful change on this video game franchise.
|
| It reminds me how Harvey Weinstein used to demand that
| women shoot nude scenes in his movies. Many women agreed
| to shoot those scenes in an attempt to help their career.
| That might technically be consent, but the power
| imbalance in the situation makes it at least partially
| coerced consent. I'm not saying the people developing DOA
| are monsters on the order of Weinstein, but the women who
| have their breast measured are in a similar compromised
| position.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| That sounds less coerced than bought. If so, the promised
| reward involved doesn't change what "consent" means, it
| only changes where breach of contract might occur.
| slg wrote:
| A large economic or power disparity between the two may
| mean that there is not much difference between "coerced"
| and "bought".
|
| It is just like someone running a sweatshop might be able
| to hire people for a couple dollars per day. The workers
| would be consenting to work at that price, but they are
| being coerced into it due to their own financial
| situation.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > I never played it, so I might be wrong, but isn't that why
| people play DOA in the first place? To see sexy women? So
| how's that trolling?
|
| There's a fair number of players who were hoping that DOA
| would become an esport: akin to Marvel vs Capcom 3, Street
| Fighter 4, or Smash Ultimate.
|
| There's a discussion that must be had about DOA's excessive
| "sexiness" and whether or not that is hurting it from
| becoming a mainstream esports game. DOA 6 focused on the
| "cinematography", which caused an outrage because their fans
| wanted more emphasis on the sex-appeal (which was absolutely
| the focus of DOA2 through DOA5: "boob physics" was front and
| center in a lot of marketing)
|
| Now don't get me wrong, the discussion should be had. But...
| this isn't about censorship at all. This discussion
| ultimately comes down to the skirt length and bust size of
| Kasumi / Marie Rose (and other characters). To derail the
| discussion by yelling "censorship" is unnecessary, and
| unhelpful hyperbole.
| lmilcin wrote:
| It might be tiring but it is also important.
|
| Believe or not, whatever we (people, collectively) decide to
| allow or disallow is very likely going to profoundly affect
| shape of freedom of expression for future generations.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Here's my problem.
|
| If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to make
| a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less sexy
| than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5), is that
| "censorship" ??
|
| Or is this a *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* discussion, and the
| "censorship" trolls are just trying to cause outrage in a
| completely unrelated subject matter?
|
| Ditto with Nintendo and their treatment of Pyra & Mythra in
| Xenogears vs Smash Ultimate. Its like Smash Ultimate is aimed
| at a younger audience, so Nintendo wanted those characters to
| have slightly less sex appeal in Smash Ultimate, while having
| slightly more sex appeal in Xenogears.
|
| So yelling "censorship" at the top of your lungs because you
| don't like Pyra's tights in Smash Ultimate is just...
| counterproductive. (For those unaware: The original character
| design doesn't have tights, so she shows a bit more thigh in
| Xenogears. So the controversy is whether or not adding the
| tights to Smash Ultimate is "censorship").
|
| --------
|
| That's the thing about "censorship". Its outrage trolling
| these days. You yell censorship not to make a point or to
| move the discussion forward. You yell it to close off the
| discussion and derail it. Its a troll move, not really about
| discussing underlying issues.
| lmilcin wrote:
| No, making your game slightly less sexy is not censorship
| if it was your own choice.
|
| If you decide not to say something, this is not impinging
| on your freedom of speech, it is you using your freedom to
| make that decision. Some people call this self-censorship
| which I do not count as censorship.
|
| When I decide not to talk politics at the office or at home
| party that might be self-censorship but in reality is my
| own choice.
|
| Yes, censoring trolls that say vaccines are harmful is
| still censorship, regardless of how sure you feel about
| being right.
|
| Understand that any idea had to start at some point with a
| single person or small number of people. Women demanding
| their right to vote, it had to start somewhere. It also
| means everybody else was of another opinion.
|
| Suppressing speech, beliefs, just because you don't agree
| with them risks to cut those movements before they have
| ability to gain traction and in effect slow human progress.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Self-censorship is censorship. If you know stating some
| position (I support candidate X) is going to result in
| being harassed, death threats or other injury and you
| choose to not engage in speech, that is still being
| censored.
| wvenable wrote:
| Speech has consequences otherwise it wouldn't be worth
| speaking. Whether or not you want to accept those
| consequences is not censorship.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is
| not censorship
|
| So if whenever someone expresses a certain opinion, they
| received mass amounts of threats against their personal
| well being, by non-government actors, you would not say
| that this speech has been chilled/censored?
|
| Are you aware of the concept of how certain actions (such
| as mass threats) can have a chilling effect on speech?
| [deleted]
| lmilcin wrote:
| Yeah. People forget free speech does not mean
| consequence-free speech.
| lmilcin wrote:
| You made decision to not get involved in the conflict.
| That's not censorship.
|
| Have others been allowed to state that position? Has some
| body tried to suppress that speech? If yes, then _they_
| (but not you) have been subject to censorship.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I was trying to remember the name for this when I wrote
| the original comment, and now I recall it.
|
| A chilling effect.
|
| It started as a legal concept but it applies to
| censorship as well. It's sufficient to count as
| censorship if you simply punish legal speech sufficiently
| that the populace self-censors.
|
| [1]: https://mtsu.edu/first-
| amendment/article/897/chilling-effect
| wrycoder wrote:
| Intimidation is an effective form of censoring.
| [deleted]
| ttt0 wrote:
| > If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to
| make a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less
| sexy than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5),
| is that "censorship" ??
|
| Is it in all releases or just the US and European releases?
| I remember people complaining that just the Western
| releases of some games were censored.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Since games are basically global these days (since the
| Japanese version must work with the European version and
| must work with the USA version for online play), its a
| blanket decision that applies globally.
| ttt0 wrote:
| If it's just cosmetic changes then not really. People can
| mod their copies, use their own models and remain
| compatible with others.
|
| edit: I'm rate limited, responding here:
|
| I just pointed out that versions don't have to be the
| same to play online. I remember people complaining that
| the releases were different, so I'm just asking.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The typical gamer can't really mod games on modern
| consoles like XBox Series X or PS5.
|
| Sure, a dedicated fan can do that. But when you consider
| the outrage is from typical people (who do not have the
| technical skill to implement these mods), then it makes
| more sense.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Except it is censorship and it's happening because a vocal
| minority of Western audiences demanded it.
|
| https://nichegamer.com/2018/10/27/new-sony-censorship-
| policy...
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Possibly. But I think most of us would rather pick another
| hill to die on than deciding that removing visible cleavage
| on a hyper-sexualized 13 year-old is "censorship".[0]
|
| [0] https://kotaku.com/xenoblade-chronicles-xs-director-on-
| local...
| lmilcin wrote:
| You are not forced to comment on a HN post dedicating to
| censoring comments if you "would rather pick another hill
| to die on".
| Jiro wrote:
| No Japanese creator is going to reply "well, I would rather
| that the company that pays my salary not censor me", unless
| they have such star power that they know they can say this
| with no repercussions, so I'm skeptical of such claims.
|
| Not to mention that Japanese creators often don't know much
| about a problem other than what the company tells them. If
| Nintendo tells them "we need to do this or people in the
| West won't buy it," the creator will believe them, and say
| that they don't mind the censorship because it's necessary,
| even if Nintendo is lying through their teeth when they say
| that.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Nintendo is a bad example actually, because a lot of the
| "sexy" games are moving to Nintendo Switch and away from
| Sony PS4/PS5.
| FriendlyNormie wrote:
| Thank you for your completely irrelevant rant about a totally
| different definition and context of "censorship" that has
| nothing to do with censoring comments or speech which you
| somehow use as your entire justification for dismissing
| complaints involving that. You. Fucking. Retard.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I'm sure you already know this, but that is not censorship. By
| definition, censorship is done by a government or some other
| outside entity. In the case of video games, it's the companies
| themselves making these changes to make them more marketable.
|
| TLDR: Capital G Gamers are idiots.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > By definition, censorship is done by a government or some
| other outside entity
|
| That's not the definition of censorship - by definition, the
| video game maker in that case chose to self-censor. It's
| debatable whether or not that was a stupid decision or a wise
| decision, but there's no other word to describe it.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public
| communication, or other information.
|
| Censorship can be self imposed, eg Hollywood.
|
| And please don't throw ad hominem attacks at groups of
| people. Not only are you incorrect but it's childish.
| kbelder wrote:
| I hate it when companies do this, and they've been doing it a
| lot recently. I think my irritation comes from the fact that
| they're not doing it to make their customers happier with their
| product; they're doing it to avoid a storm of controversy from
| people who in large part aren't their customers.
|
| They have the right to do it, I understand it, and I might do
| the same in their place, because who wants a twitterstorm
| against their new product? But it's still annoying.
| dragontamer wrote:
| In the case of DOA6, it was before the alleged Sony
| "censorship" rumors of recent years. So keep that in mind,
| DOA6 was released a couple of years ago.
|
| The DOA6 example is almost entirely a case where Koei Tecmo
| wanted to be taken "more seriously" as an eSports game.
|
| Now maybe you can argue that "eSports players don't play Dead
| or Alive", and only "casual players looking for sexiness play
| Dead or Alive". But... I know that's not true either. Some of
| my friends who were into fighting games were "serious" about
| their Dead or Alive combos / practice regiments / matchups /
| etc. etc. There are plenty of serious players in that group.
|
| On the one hand: you got the "casuals" who pay $1000 for
| hundreds of costumes (Dead or Alive 5 was very famous for its
| DLC costumes). "eSports" players didn't do this, because they
| were more focused on the combo practice rather than playing
| dress-up with these characters. (In contrast, the players who
| did find the characters sexy, probably did play "dress up"
| more often and were into buying these costume packs).
|
| Frankly: its not a clear cut case. I could very well see Koei
| Tecmo wanting to appeal to the eSports players, hoping that
| it'd propel their game to newer heights in the "serious"
| eSports ring (ex: Marvel vs Capcom 3 / Street Fighter 4).
| Furthermore, the "casual" audience argued that they deserved
| more influence than the eSport ambitions BECAUSE they spent
| all of this money on DLC costumes with no in-game effect
| aside from "playing dress up".
|
| ---------
|
| In contrast, Bandai's "Soul Calibur" series never really had
| this issue. Soul Calibur can remain "sexy costume / dressup"
| for casuals, because Bandai's "serious" esports game was
| Tekken. (And while Soul Calibur's "serious" players
| definitely held side tournaments, they were always seen as
| 2nd class citizens compared to Tekken at the eSports events).
|
| ---------
|
| Nintendo's "Smash Ultimate" example is kinda funny, because
| its clear that Nintendo doesn't really want Smash Ultimate to
| be an eSports title (despite it taking up a big eSports
| following). Nintendo's eSports ambitions are Pokken
| Tournament (Pokemon fighting game) and Splatoon.
|
| Despite not wanting to be an eSports title, Nintendo clearly
| is aiming the game at younger audiences, so various
| characters are a bit more covered up in Smash Ultimate (ex:
| Bayonetta, Pyra, etc. etc.)
| kstrauser wrote:
| Every bit of this is great, but I especially liked:
|
| > To the people who have been abusing the system: you are of
| course free to have your own opinions, and you are free to
| express them on your own site or anywhere else that will have
| you, but this is a warning notice. Do what you like but don't do
| it here. You are free to contribute your thoughts on other topics
| if you honestly have something to add or some question to ask,
| but any sign of attempted pandemic flaming will be deleted as
| quickly as I see it. Go away and tell everyone that Big Pharma
| muzzled you, if that makes you feel better. But in the end,
| you're already going to be the last people standing after the
| vaccines wipe the rest of us out, right? Isn't that enough?
|
| I think that's the proper take. No one's denying anyone's right
| to express their opinion. They're just not providing a platform
| for factually incorrect ones.
| paulpauper wrote:
| trolls obviously know this. they want the audience that comes
| from posting on a high traffic website. Posting your opinions
| on ramdomguydog. blogspot.com does not deliver much audience.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I fully agree that they want to use the prestige of the
| trusted website's name on their rants. I think a lot of
| people genuinely believe that they're owed a soapbox, though.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| The type of person who only speaks, never listens/reads.
| robbyking wrote:
| In my opinion, this is absolutely the right way to go.
|
| I know it's a completely different field, but I moderate a fairly
| large mountain biking forum, and I often have to remove comments
| that recommend techniques that could result in injury or death.
| It's often new riders who find that Technique B works better for
| them than Technique A, but they don't have the experience to
| understand why Technique B is dangerous.
|
| I can't imagine how much worse it must be in Dr. Lowe's field.
| sneak wrote:
| Deleting those comments doesn't help the comment poster (or
| others) know why Technique B is dangerous, or inoculate them
| from hearing about Technique B later and using it without
| knowing the danger.
|
| We shouldn't pretend poisons don't exist, we should label them
| with warnings.
| 8note wrote:
| They should not show up before the warning, and not at all in
| a recommendation thread.
|
| There should be a specific thread about poison
| ketzo wrote:
| Okay, but if we're not _able_ to label every single one
| (because we don 't have the time/resources/ability to do so),
| we should probably still remove them, no?
|
| Better removed than unlabeled, as nice as a label might be.
| r00fus wrote:
| Didn't slashdot solve this like 20 years ago? Have
| moderation keys (+1 insightful, -1 redundant but maybe
| retooled to your audience/domain) and let the users
| moderate and have 2nd (even more trusted users) and 3rd
| level moderation (site owner) to moderate those
| moderations.
|
| It's like bureaucracy for moderation.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >We shouldn't pretend poisons don't exist, we should label
| them with warnings.
|
| We also shouldn't put them in the fridge next to the bottle
| of coke no matter how well labeled.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I think most users know what a comments section is.
| bingidingi wrote:
| most people couldn't name a web browser
| epgui wrote:
| I think you have an overly generous view of most people!
| pstuart wrote:
| > We also shouldn't put them in the fridge next to the
| bottle of coke no matter how well labeled.
|
| That's a great analogy, Perhaps to extend it -- there could
| be a "discards" section where the comment gets moved to
| should it be warranted, along with a note on why.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| While nice in theory, people can generate low effort BS
| comments far faster than one can properly refute them.
| pstuart wrote:
| Yeah, it was on off-the-cuff thought. It still might be
| worth exploring. I think it's safe to say that there's
| still room for improvements in the moderation domain.
| c0nsumer wrote:
| Nice to see you here as well. Solid work on that moderation;
| that community is huge and while often great, in some ways
| pretty darned awful.
| robbyking wrote:
| Thanks! Small world!
| adharmad wrote:
| "Go away and tell everyone that Big Pharma muzzled you, if that
| makes you feel better. But in the end, you're already going to be
| the last people standing after the vaccines wipe the rest of us
| out, right? Isn't that enough?"
|
| :-)
| temp8964 wrote:
| I agree the author can choose whatever model of discussion he
| wants. But I don't think the commenters he referred to are
| "trolls". Those commenters are people who hold their (maybe
| stupid) opinions and try very hard to convince others. Even
| though they seem to create inflammatory wars, maybe that's not
| their intention. Some of them can be civil and they truly believe
| what they say. They are just stubborn and unwelcomed by the host.
| But I think "troll" means something else. Surely most authors
| don't like this kind of commenters.
|
| What is different is the nature of the blog, which is focused on
| medicine. This seems to make the alternative views on the issues
| kind of harmful to the society. And the author has more reason to
| ban them. But honestly, I don't believe any doctor in the U.S.
| comes to the comments section to get prescription advices.
| gerikson wrote:
| Poe's law tells us that a parody of a viewpoint is essentially
| indistinguishable from a sincerely held viewpoint.
|
| The best trolls are the ones who are playing true believers.
| TheFreim wrote:
| > The best trolls are the ones who are playing true
| believers.
|
| I think the best trolls _are_ true believers who know how to
| not take their own views seriously. This gives them the
| ability to not only screw with you but also at various points
| make actual real points about things. The mixing and matching
| of reality, perceived or real, with content designed to anger
| and upset makes for a recipe for anger and annoyance.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I wish sites would just disable commenting altogether, at least
| on certain topics. That's what CBC up here does on anything
| that's in any way related to race, gender, climate, first
| nations, etc.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > CBC
|
| The Canadian Broadcasting Company: https://cbc.ca
|
| While it's a TV station, and a set of radio stations, they also
| provide a news website.
|
| > up here
|
| That would be Canada. Like Americans, many of us assume we're
| talking to Americans when writing online.
| musicale wrote:
| Usually "an announcement about the comment section" means "we're
| disabling comments entirely."
|
| So I was pleasantly surprised that it's just moderation.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| Sounds like the author should have a chat with dang and compare
| notes.
| paulpauper wrote:
| dang would tell him to have a feature to grey out troll
| comments
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| And when you find someone disagreeable, just give them the
| old "You're posting too fast, please slow down."
| ttt0 wrote:
| Yeah, what's going on with this? If I did something wrong
| then just warn me first, because it comes out of nowhere
| and I have no idea what the hell is going on. How does it
| even work? Is it triggered automatically or what?
|
| Hey dang, you mind explaining this?
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-
| undocumented/issues...
|
| It's not totally clear about how this works. It looks
| like I've been shadowbanned from making new posts at
| least temporarily, since when I tried to make a new post
| yesterday I was met with this error despite making no
| posts yesterday.
|
| I am not sure what the goal is. I already hit 500 so I've
| got the downvote, but maybe there's more rights and
| privileges that they want to keep me from obtaining with
| a higher upvote count?
| raphlinus wrote:
| That's a large part of the reason I posted it. The situations
| are not exactly parallel though. Derek's blog is his space, and
| he absolutely has a right to curate it as he wishes, though in
| the past a laissez-faire approach has worked.
|
| I found this interesting for a few other reasons as well. It's
| a pretty solid data point that discourse around Covid is worse
| than around other scientific topics. Also, there are
| suggestions that a small number of people are purposefully
| stirring up shit (the fact that they didn't take hints that
| their mode of discourse was not welcome). I'm sure the same
| dynamic is at play on HN as well.
|
| Ultimately, we have to come up with strategies to deal with
| this. I'm hopeful that Derek's approach will work for his small
| (but excellent) corner of the Internet.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| HN has dedicated people like dang that moderate the comments.
| Derek only has himself and unfortunately it's now far too much
| burden for him to both write excellent content, and moderate an
| increasingly unruly comment section. I'm sure if someone funded
| Derek's blog to have dedicated moderators it could be whipped
| into shape and kept manageable, but who is going to write the
| checks?
| hprotagonist wrote:
| and meanwhile, let's not forget, dude is busy going to work
| and doing his real job!
|
| In The Pipeline is not his employment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-28 23:00 UTC)