| |
| ▲ | pixl97 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Agents and government aligned bots curate content here too. Nowhere on the web is safe. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are gradations between platforms, but I'd generally agree with you. |
| |
| ▲ | IshKebab 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's the whataboutism. | |
| ▲ | nsowz 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The moderation of this website is downright shameful. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The moderation of this website is downright shameful. It's more like a series of tradeoffs compared to other platforms when it comes to features and userbase tendencies, and none are perfect. Every platform sucks in some way. Also, users (and user bots) do the flagging here, not moderators. | | |
| ▲ | nsowz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, the fact that the paid moderators of the site let the users do the work for them so they don’t have to work themselves is one of the shames of the moderation of this site, but there’s much more. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a free to use site. How many moderators do you think they would have to hire to do the work you think they should be doing? | | |
| ▲ | nsowz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | They shouldn’t allow users to moderate the site, even if it means longer response times to remove spam, since it very commonly leads to the users abusing that power to remove things that they do not like even if they do not break the rules. That happens very often and the moderators are okay with it because allowing users to remove other users’ content so it goes with the “editorial line” of the commenters of the site lowers dissent and therefore they have to work less. | | |
| ▲ | gessha 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | A perfectly secure system is one you can’t use. Another version is: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero. |
|
| |
| ▲ | swed420 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You sure seem to have an axe to grind with this site in particular, when in reality it is not wholly better or worse than any other social media / discussion platform. In fact, in some ways it's somewhat innovative with some really simple ideas that help distinguish it from the rest. I don't know why you think moderators should work for free. That's up to the platform to decide. Also, I'd take the lenience found on HN any day over the ban hammer / shadow ban / user siloing approaches that others sites cave to. As we've seen, there is no perfect approach. | | |
| ▲ | nsowz 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | First, nowhere in my comment did I say I wanted moderators to work for free. Second, HN shadowbans all the time - they shadowban so much that regular bans do not even exist here. If they ban you, it will be a shadow ban. | | |
| ▲ | swed420 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm glad we agree on the first point, and sorry if I misunderstood you on that. As for shadow banning, yes it is employed here on occasion, but I'm speaking strictly from my own experience with the site. I regularly take large steaming shits on various capital interests in favor of the hacker ethos, and so far it has always been permitted (and is not hard to verify it isn't shadow banned). That this site is the child of SV monied interests says at least something positive about their tolerance for these things compared to other sites like X/reddit/bluesky who all have the groupthink/echo chamber concept polished quite well by now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
