[HN Gopher] Asymmetric Content Moderation in Search Markets: The...
___________________________________________________________________
Asymmetric Content Moderation in Search Markets: The Case of Adult
Websites
Author : amadeuspagel
Score : 47 points
Date : 2025-04-24 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (papers.ssrn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (papers.ssrn.com)
| motolov wrote:
| Interesting abstract. I can see similar concepts applied to eg
| govt regulation, censorship, etc (only one side monitoring, other
| sides absorb content of the monitored)
|
| BTW, it looks like your PDF is missing figures/illustrations/etc
| (there is placeholder text) Not sure if this was a publishing
| tech issue or if missed in authoring
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| i left reddit because i was tired of mods destroying
| communities (with "moderation" which is really just shitty
| curation by your shitty taste)
|
| porn consumption is even more demanding. if you want "that
| release" you dont really care about the 2257
| Freak_NL wrote:
| The whole document looks weirdly formatted, but you can click
| the red numeral in the placeholder text for the tables and
| figures to jump to the appendix where it is. Not sure if this
| approach is intentional. It's certainly weird.
|
| You would think that with a decent LaTeX template academic
| papers would look reproducibly good, but for some reason some
| (many?) institutions and authors choose weakly justified
| convention over typographically sound formatting optimised for
| actual reading. The font choice (not too bad, but not pleasant
| either), the outsized leading which competes with the paragraph
| spacing. Look at how badly the references section on page
| xxviii scans.
|
| The word missing from the abstract is 'PornHub', of course.
| They're not just studying "a dominant online platform". The
| fact that it is PornHub seems relevant enough not to hide it in
| the abstract to me.
| mcphage wrote:
| > The word missing from the abstract is 'PornHub', of course.
| They're not just studying "a dominant online platform". The
| fact that it is PornHub seems relevant enough not to hide it
| in the abstract to me.
|
| The fact that it was PornHub is mentioned repeatedly in the
| paper itself. Leaving it out of the abstract seems fair--they
| picked PornHub because it was a site that deleted 80% of
| their content, not because they're specifically interested in
| studying PornHub.
|
| And, they study several of MindGeek's sites, not just PornHub
| exclusively.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Sure, but omitting it is like having a study about 'a
| dominant social medium' and not mentioning that it is
| Facebook or X in the abstract (or a study about
| radicalisation of young men focusing on 'an anonymous
| imageboard' and not putting 4chan or whatever in the
| abstract). These are for the most part unique beasts, not
| interchangeable venues.
|
| It is relevant information for anyone scanning through
| dozens of abstracts on the topics addressed.
| bschne wrote:
| I also find this annoying, but it's common practice to do this
| while a draft is still being worked on and not yet getting
| submitted to a journal (SSRN is [?] SocSci Arxiv)
| tough wrote:
| Why isn't there a global-like open platform for science like
| ArXiv?
| bschne wrote:
| path dependency with fields having developed their own
| early on I guess?
| tough wrote:
| so are these like other fields don't use LaTeX but other
| formatting?
|
| I can see for example if its' mostly word documents from
| source on that area of science maybe there's no point on
| arxiv like pipeline that builds from source.
|
| wondering if it will ever converge there, like a
| wikipedia only about science/research but of all areas
| dkga wrote:
| This is how some people in economics format their papers due to
| how some top journals require manuscripts to be. Source: I'm an
| economist (although I personally prefer to place figs/tables
| where they are supposed to be).
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "What do you do?" Study porn
| dkga wrote:
| A: "I can't believe I caught you in that website!" B: "It's for
| research, really!"
| frankfrank13 wrote:
| > Our findings highlight how asymmetric exposure to content
| moderation shocks can reshape market competition, drive consumers
| toward less regulated spaces, and alter substitution patterns
| across platforms.
|
| Or at least one very specific market and platform
| ssalka wrote:
| > The shift did not take place immediately. Within six months,
| traffic at smaller, less regulated sites had grown by 55%, and at
| larger sites by 10%, with point estimates implying that the
| traffic was entirely diverted to competing firms. This suggests
| that regulating only the largest platforms may push traffic to
| fringe sites and less controlled spaces.
|
| This rings true to me, especially in the recent context of AI
| adopters looking for uncensored alternatives. This frame of
| thinking can be applied not only to models, i.e. many move away
| from OpenAI/ChatGPT in search of less restricted models, as well
| as being applied to sites providing AI resources. Just the other
| day, CivitAI (the current leader for distributing custom
| checkpoints, LoRAs for image-centric models) announced it was
| taking a much more heavy-handed approach to moderation due to
| pressure from Mastercard/Visa. Its users are simply outraged, and
| many I think will be leaving in search of a safe haven for their
| models/gens going forward.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-24 23:00 UTC)