all 11 comments

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

how do you mean?

[–]theoracle[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As in you can choose as a reader to have moderation on or off and you can also choose from a list of moderators.

[–]BravoVictor 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How would optional moderation work? How would you stop subs from becoming full of spam or off-topic nonsense?

[–]theoracle[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It would work to stop spam just like it does now. Except if you wanted to you could turn it off and see anything. I envisage though there would be local sub based moderators and global ones. For the global ones you could have things like purely spam based moderators that only target spam. Sub based mods would usually keep things on topic.

I envisage that you would create teams of moderators that you could even rank. Moderator logs would still be good. People could vote and rank the moderators to make it easier to choose.

I want to avoid the situation where moderators become tyrannical and try to block people they disagree with.

We could also attach votes to the moderator used at the time.

Have a look at spaces on notabug

It is similar to what I want but implemented in a very hard to use way.

I am thinking that you can just choose moderators in a side bar would be best. People could vote on them so the more popular would rank higher. Maybe the highest ranked would default to on, so people that arnt logged on arnt shocked by shitposts, or the site could just have a default mod group. Either way everything should still be optional!

If a mod became tyrannical it would become obvious when parts of conversation started disappearing but those that used other mods remain. People would naturally switch moderator to engage. And so the tyrant would end. L-)

[–]KennyLogins 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a thoughtful idea. I'd like to see it tested.

[–]theoracle[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. I have been sitting on it for probably a decade. I was surprised to see Notabug has already tried it with "spaces", but alas over there it's a bit like using the command line vs a gui. I would guess some of the code from Notabug could be adapted to get it working. The most basic implementation is to just have a switch to turn moderation off... ideally though I want it far more sophisticated than that. I like my posts pretty raw but spam will drive anyone nuts.

I think Slashdot was probably the first to try something like this where you could slide and change the view preference for different posts based on vote count, like below something is collapsed and below that is hidden etc.

I really really think that this idea of optional moderation will solve most of the issues people are facing in forums. And if saidit or anyone was to implement it well they would eventually capture more traffic than reddit.

Now having said that one of my other solutions to this is open sourcing the content. I cover it in my other post before this, it's a bit long, . Basically what that will do is prevent just one platform locking things down. So if saidit gets it wrong then someone else may get it right. Now I am hoping saidit gets it right though! I really like magnora7 and what they have done. And they have technically "open sourced" the content, in fact maybe even better. They have federated it which is they are sharing it across platforms.

I do however have my reservations about saidit, there wasn't a strong commitment to free speech, and although the pyramid of debate is a great idea it was never going to work. But wait. So I hoped over to ruqqus and well after coming back here and looking at things, like with federation and Notabug I think free speech has a good chance here. And there is a possibility that the pyramid of debate could succeed. For something like the pyramid of debate to succeed you are going to need a huge moderation team, 1000's for a reddit size forum. I can only see a moderation team on that scale working with optional moderation. But people should be free to choose.

This problem needs to be attacked at both ends, you should be free to speak, but also free to choose what you want to read.

Freedom both ways.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It sounds pretty awesome. NAB is by far in the best position to pull this off.

[–]BravoVictor 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting idea. However, the danger I see with that is most large and popular subs would probably just turn into a choice between:

  1. tyrannical mod curated content
  2. complete noise

[–]theoracle[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How do you see that happening? because I see the complete opposite as stated in the post. You will have many options to moderate. We could even make the moderation actions public, so you could copy them edited out the bad bits etc and make a new one. This is why it is optional. You can choose if and what moderation you want.

Maybe read some of my post and comments here on the idea


[–]rdh2121 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is an interesting idea, but with the way Saidit works, with open modlogs and the ability to report moderators who violate site rules, I don't really think it's necessary.

[–]theoracle[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's 100% necessary. Who decides why is a post censored? Why as a reader can't I make that decision? How will the limited admins cope with reddit scale 80 posts a second? The moderator logs do not show the comments content that was deleted, so how can I trust the moderators actions?

Just like you have free speech, you should have freedom to hear and read. Forced censorship is like book burning. Optional censorship is like have different book stores. Completely different.