zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
I think something that really bothers me about this discussion about moderation is how many people approach this debate like a new born baby. They have an idea and then speculate on how it fixes everything. There's never any discussion of what exists in the real world. ACX here is essentially describing some key attributes of reddit. Each sub-reddit has it's own moderation team that decides what's acceptable and then you opt-in. This is pretty close to what ACX is proposing.

So let's look at what happened in reality. Almost immediately sub-reddits pop up that are at the very least attempting to skirt the law, and often directly breaching the law- popular topics on reddit included creative interpretations of the age of consent for example, or indeed the requirement for consent at all. Oh and because anyone can create one these communities, the site turns into whack-a-mole.

The second thing that happened was communities popped up pretty much for the sole purpose of harassing's other communities. But enabling this sort of market place of moderation, you are providing a mechanism for a group of people to organize a way to attack your own platform. So now you have to step back in and we're back to censorship.

I also think that this article completely mischaracterizes what the free speech side of the debate want.

>>Silver+hP
I have observed an awful lot of Eternal September effect in these debates. I suspect it might be easy for people who have been living on the Internet for a long time to miss the ways in which their intuitions don't mesh with somebody new to the space. Leads to a lot of two ships passing in the night debate.

Fresh ideas are always welcome, but the people who are trying to maintain working forums have been at the process for a long time now and can draw on experience all the way back to the BBS days.

>>shadow+ZY
>I have observed an awful lot of Eternal September effect in these debates. I suspect it might be easy for people who have been living on the Internet for a long time to miss the ways in which their intuitions don't mesh with somebody new to the space. Leads to a lot of two ships passing in the night debate.

I don't disagree with your point, there's quite a bit of knowledge around building communities and moderation that's been around and honed for at least a generation. And we should take that knowledge and build on and around it.

That said, folks have been going on about "Eternal September" for decades. Granted, people are born all the time, but they've grown up in the age of the Internet.

As such, it seems to me that at some point (if not now, when?) we need to get away from that particular excuse.

Anyone born before the Internet (myself included) has had a long time to figure things out, and anyone born in the Internet's wake is immersed in it from a fairly young age.

So why do we continue to use "Eternal September" as a foil?

It's entirely possible I'm missing something important, and if I am, please do enlighten me. Thanks!

>>nobody+O51
I feel you are exactly missing the point of what Eternal September means.

Yes, there is some knowledge for some internet savvy types who grew up with the internet, but a lot of people are casual users. Many people still feel anonymity gives them carte blanche to be a jerk, or worse.

The amount of effort to be online is zero, but the amount of effort of people to behave is sometimes also zero (or low), of course depending on context. HN is a lot more civilized, but if it stopped being moderated it would in time be a nasty place as well.

>>prox+Li1
> Many people still feel anonymity gives them carte blanche to be a jerk,

I don't think it's even anonymity, for some, indirect communication is enough: I once had a roommate who would leave unpleasant messages on the answering machine, but would be perfectly nice in person (on the same topic, even).