> * The key mechanism that makes Radiopaper different from other social networks, and more resistant to trolling and abuse, is that messages are not published until the counterparty replies or accepts your comment.
.
Does this mean if someone doesn’t agree with your comment they can ignore it entirely, and nobody else in the conversation will ever know the comment was made? If that’s the case then wouldn’t it be possible to manufacture a sense of agreement (in the thread) by dismissing all unfavorable comments?
Edit: Also if enough people of the same ideological leaning (or an army of bots) did this and engaged only with themselves, it could give the illusion that the general sentiment of users of your service is aligned in some belief or system of ideals or w.e?
Idk, maybe I’m just spewing nonsense.. I like the overall idea and I wish your team the best of luck.
I can't believe this would be described as a selling point. Negative replies are necessary for the usefulness of any community.
Unless the intent is just to maximally echo chamber the network, protect con artists from unfavorable replies and so on. Until someone takes a screenshot of your post, and posts their reply as a new root, and the point has been defeated...
It makes each thread owner a moderator, which is kind of nice. Just like forums and social networks, thread authors may gain a reputation for one sided echo chambers, or comprehensive and educational conversation. Radiopaper doesn't force you to censor other opinions, or encourage you to do so.
I hadn’t considered the reputation bit. I do think of that is a mechanism that would come into play then it would only be knowable by people that are frequently engaging on the platform. Do you think this would pose issues for new users (assuming some threshold is of active users is met and there is a ton of conversations happening)
Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN, that I've been looking for an alternative for a long time. Innovation is desperately needed in this space.
I've experienced a similar commenting system to RadioPaper in use on the Gawker properties, and it's not bad. It is siloed. But just because there's a single silo at HN doesn't mean everybody sticks around in that silo.
> Frankly, I'm so tired of the pervasive low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion of disenfranchised communities on HN
You mean exclusion of moderate to right leaning opinions right? That's my experience. If not (or even if so), I've seen lots of discussion on HN where everyone thinks their pet viewpoint is getting unduly picked on. That's probably as good a sign of neutrality as one can find (not that I think HN reader moderation is neutral)
Edit: maybe I'm misunderstanding the replies but my point is that many people seems to feel like the overall forum sentiment is against them. I'm not saying HN has a demonstrable left-wing bias. People seem to be trying to refute that for some reason
I’ve actually seen the opposite ime. Anecdotal, but I’ve told my wife at least 3-4 times about how shocked I’ve been that conservative talking points have been received well on this platform. The wuhan lab leak theory, commentary on undue censorship, predatory DIB/HR practices, moving out of costal areas to seek more sane people groups, and so on. I’m often surprised that there are centrists and right leaning people on this platform considering that the current media narrative would insist that we are all some degree of leftist.
There are apolitical reasons for this theory. I'm not conservative and found it to be in the realm of plausibility. For what it's worth, I've entertained it before it made headlines.
Would you consider yourself left-leaning by any chance? I wonder if its a perspective thing, because from what I've seen discussions seem pretty balanced towards both sides. I saw the wuhan lab theory post that I think you're talking about. But I've also seen a ton of posts and comments recently calling for increased land/property taxes
> wuhan lab theory... calling for increased land/property taxes
I feel like these are probably on two different levels, but given that you called it a theory and not a conspiracy, I think you'll also probably disagree.
I haven't got much opinion or knowledge on the matter, but the main discussion [1] about the Wuhan Lab here was pretty civil. It wasn't overly conspirational and there were a good few people in opposition.
You seem to imply it is some crazy far right conspiracy, but that wasn't the impression I got from skimming the Wikipedia article [2]. There's a good few serious people who consider it possible and while I'm sure some distorted version of it is weaponized by politicians, I don't see why that's reason to discard it.
If I'm thinking about the same post that the commenter was thinking of [1][2], the article was not saying the theory as correct, but was discussing issues with the discourse around the theory.
Edit: I posted the wrong vanityfair link, fixed. Also regarding my terminology, "conspiracy" is a bit of a loaded term, and given the information in the vanityfair article I decided to keep my terminology more neutral
> The wuhan lab leak theory, commentary on undue censorship, predatory DIB/HR practices, moving out of costal areas to seek more sane people groups, and so on.
Do you feel that an intelligent, principled person cannot make a valid argument opposing you and your wife for any of these phenomena?
Well, I would like it if I could participate in a forum where "women are genetically predisposed to be less ambitious than men" is not a constant theme of debate.
Having that debate drives away women. I don't know if that's the kind of "right-leaning opinion" you're talking about, but if it is, I would rather that we were divided into two silos: one silo where people talk about how women are not ambitious, and one silo with women.
This is rarely possible on the internet but the ideal forum for me would be one where people could discuss the details of genetic predispositions with the understanding that it generally shouldn't change how people should behave.
Like, say one day that a very well researched finding comes out and proves that men are predisposed to be more violent, in reference to higher incarceration rates. Should it change how you treat other people, once it has been reasonably proven as fact? I think not.
The choice that someone makes to discriminate against a group based on statistical realities does not depend in the slightest on whether those facts are true. People easily pretend they are true if they are not, and if they are true it doesn't justify discrimination in the end either way!
Unfortunately these arguments seem to often end up just being in service of a goal like justifying discrimination, and when they aren't, certain others will show up to accuse the person of that even if not true. Sigh.
I think there are plenty of forums where vulnerable people are shielded from uncomfortable ideas. And there are plenty where open exploration of ideas happens. The internet is decentralized enough that everyone can be satisfied already. I don't see what needs fixing.
I wonder, are there predominantly female areas of society where members often worry about how their rules drive away men? Are nurses afraid to talk about men's propensity to not be caring in case it scares them off?
In the concrete context of the post you're replying to, you seem to be saying that women are 'vulnerable people'? I'd suggest picking a definition of 'vulnerable people' that doesn't mean pushing away half the world's population.
(I'm also a little bemused at your implication of what an 'uncomfortable idea' is, as well as the implication that hackernews is the right place for this, as well as the assertion that you can fragment social networks to satisfy people while ignoring the effects of critical mass - but there's too much to unpack)
Your second paragraph is irrelevant in this thread (which discusses HN specifically).
Uncomfortable ideas, for vulnerable people, I guess would be the kinds of ideas that make them vulnerable in the first place. E.g., that same-sex relationships are against God or against the natural order of things, or that women should naturally be subservient to men, or only have themselves to blame for sexual violence. I've heard that there are forums on the Internet where such ideas are explored freely.
Edit: A forum that bans discussions like that, will probably be seen as left-leaning by some.
That's just obscure political correctness. I'd say it's far more often people who lack emotional maturity or self confidence and have any of all sorts of common insecurities that they don't want to be reminded of. Imagine being called an idiot when you actually have a low IQ? It hurts and it's far more common than being gay in Pakistan or whatever.
The person I was replying to seemed to want protected forums where women could be shielded from uncomfortable ideas. I was just saying that we already have those, as well as not those. Everyone's satisfied.
As for network effects, small forums still exist and serve people fine. You don't actually have to be on Twitter or HN to interact with people that you prefer.
A lot of the most provocative conversations I've read have been in siloed forums, where people are not constantly getting shouted down and interrupted and can actually string together coherent lines of thought.
I would like it very much if Radiopaper's approach, or some variant of it, made it possible to actually have a more enriching exploration of ideas.
> (not that I think HN reader moderation is neutral)
it's not neutral, but it doesn't lean "left" or "right" per se. What I see is a preference for well-argued or immediately-obvious points, often with citations, that engage fully with whatever they are a response to. Dismissals, emotive arguments, citation-free when making bold claims ... these do not fare well.
Perhaps there's just a big overlap between anti-science opinion and right-leaning opinions, these days, and a lot of readers on HN don't care much for the former?
Strictly speaking though, I think pro-science or anti-science is independent of left vs right.
Edit: I think I've only used the downvote feature twice on HN, and in both times it was for promotion of a ridiculous Trump-related conspiracy theory. Consider me left-wing biased, which I certainly am these days.
This is an absurd characterization that is only used by people who don't understand the difference between science and religion and think that calling someone "anti-science" is a way to avoid debate about their religious views. It's as embarrassing as it is offensive.
They didn't say anything about religion - there are many non-religious anti-science views on the right, like climate denial and wild conspiracy theories. Plus, religious views that guide public policy and contradict science are fair to criticize.
I might be misreading the comment you're responding to, but I think it was describing science as a religion.
The dichotomy of "pro-science" and "anti-science" elevates science to an almost religious stature. Science is fallible, it's very hard to do and just as hard to interpret. It's also not the right tool for a lot of issues.
Increasingly people have been adopting being pro-science as a part of their identity as if science held some ultimate, unquestionable truth. To me it is akin to faith, it's an appeal to a higher authority that is used to shut down debate and paint some opinions as moral and others as immoral.
I suppose pro- or anti-religion isn't completely orthogonal to left vs right politics. Support for a dominant religion is more likely to be found on the right, as a means of social control.
A forum could be seen as left-leaning simply by having a policy that all contributors are equal and should be treated with respect. Desire for equality (of wealth and power) is pretty much the defining left-wing characteristic.
I wonder how often you have made comments that others would consider "low grade harassment" and exclusionary without realizing it, and thus would have those comments removed by someone, somewhere, if they had their way. It's a lot more frequent than you might realize.
One thing i fail to understand about this viewpoint is why the relationship between the removal of replies and comments and "low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion" isn't more prominent. Someone might say something one doesn't like, but the one has very little real power over the someone just with a reply.
But if they have the power to delete what they say, it's much easier to reach the level of harassment and exclusion. There isn't a much stronger tool for harassment and exclusion than moderation tools used improperly.
> I wonder how often you have made comments that others would consider "low grade harassment" and exclusionary
I'm quite certain that I have done so on this very thread. I'm seeking an environment (a private forum) where certain lines of debate are less ubiquitous (because I believe those lines of debate drive away people I would like to engage with). Some people are surely interpreting that as exclusionary and discriminatory, and perhaps some see it as low-grade-harassment trying to get them to leave.
There's a important distinction to be made between immutable characteristics and identity tied to ideas, but that doesn't mean that they aren't experiencing those feelings.
> There isn't a much stronger tool for harassment and exclusion than moderation tools used improperly.
A forum's promise of open exploration of ideas is worthless for those people who have left.
What I like about the RadioPaper approach is that it enhances freedom of association. Perhaps in practice that may actually lead to a more enriching exchange of ideas than a "free-speech" shouting contest.
(I still think that the comment-approval mechanism is best used to audition new contributors for unlimited participation, though.)
Everyone feels like they are targeted and disenfranchised, as a side effect of the nature of social media.
All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ...
All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...
I do not believe or claim that dang is personally biased against "my side". I think he tries incredibly hard and is rigorously driven to avoid bias because of the grand social experiment he's shepherding. It's our privilege to participate in that experiment.
What I claim is that the policy of "assume good faith" has an inevitable, unavoidable side effect of driving away outgroups. On reflection it wouldn't be just left-affiliated outgroups either — the mechanism is that leniency in moderation means that low-grade hostility is tolerated — BUT that hostility could be directed against the outgroups of any forum, and who the outgroups are is variable and forum-specific.
The fact that both sides make similar claims does not necessarily means both of them are wrong. One can be just mistaken - or lying, and another telling the truth. An aggressor frequently claims the victim started it - but that doesn't mean aggressors and victims do not exist.
You can see that the people that control moderation on most social networks are political left, and aren't shy about discussing it. You can see that the political support from the social media workers leans to the left (I think over 99% of all political donations from twitter goes to the left). You see that these people routinely proclaim support for leftist political causes in their personal social media. Do you think there's a chance this influences their decisions?
Now, we've been told a lot about implicit biases and how people that think they are even handed may be still prejudiced even if they don't realize it, and need to take deliberate actions to ensure this bias does not influence their work. Do you think this also relates to people controlling social media, or they are unique caste of saints untainted by biases the rest of humanity suffers from? Or, more likely, they don't think they need to any take such actions, because they live in 99% agreement bubble? Do you think the existence of 99% agreement bubbles hinders their ability to evaluate their biases and enact measures to reduce their impact on their work?
That author advocates that HN stay how it is — or rather, she advocates changing it from within. But I don't think it's possible — I believe that the "assume good faith" proposition leads to toleration of unlimited low-grade hostility that does not rise above the threshold of flagging. The result is that outgroups flee the platform. Have you not noticed the gender imbalance around here?
From what I can see it's pick your poison:
* "Assume good faith" — outgroups don't participate. Exclusion may not be the intent, but it is the de facto result.
* Siloed: outgroups can and will meaningfully participate, but debate is more constrained.
Meh, low-grade harassment to you might be completely acceptable conversation to other people, and that is the crux of the issue. Voting is used to identify bad-faith responses. If certain people can't handle responses which are in good faith, then I am personally glad that they are not participating. Those are not the kind of people that make good discussions anyway.
I wish the article gave more examples than a single 2-line comment (that was already flagged and called out for being "stupid" by the moderator anyways)
Yeah, I'm not surprised. I mean, the ridiculous gender imbalance here doesn't bother a lot of those who have stayed. It's a vicious cycle — the people who it bothers leave, and since those are disproportionately women, the imbalance gets worse.
I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay. I literally have no idea about gender of any person but a handful of "celebrities" on HN - and it never occurred to me to account for it in reading or writing comments (excluding, of course, ones directly discussing gender issues of a specific person, which are thankfully rare). But of course, I am aware of demographics of the tech community, and there's a place to discuss it. It's just it doesn't have to be the only - or the primary - thing to discuss on HN. For me. I guess for people that think otherwise there might be other venues they may prefer, and it's fine too. There's absolutely no problem in existence of the multiple forums with diverse set of focal topics. One doesn't even have to "leave" HN to be able to discuss gender issues in other places.
The point is that regardless of reason, women are by and large not well represented on HN. This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs. I recall that a few years ago, DoreenMichele was the only identifiable female.
> I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay.
That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues and male identity based activism, in addition to those discussing women, transgender, and universal gender issues.
> This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs.
Why would I want to do that? I mean, unless I am specifically interested either in gender activism (I am not), or in dating a top-100 HN poster (I am happily married) - why would I bother to research what kind of bits each of top-100 HN posters carry between their legs?
> That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues
I would like to see some data supporting the assumption that male-focused gender issues and male-focused activism are discussed significantly more frequently on HN than female-focused gender issues and female-focused activism. This does not match my anecdotal impression - but of course I could be wrong. Could I see the source of your claims?
I only mention it to support the assertion that the gender imbalance exists. You wouldn't do it ordinarily.
> I would like to see some data supporting the assumption that male-focused gender issues and male-focused activism are discussed significantly more frequently on HN than female-focused gender issues and female-focused activism.
I didn't make such an assertion, as I was only rebutting the idea that "people interested in gender and identity based activism leave" per se. There are plenty of such discussions — a 700-comment thread on limb lengthening surgery just went by within the last day. The thread is filled with testimonials as to the discrimination faced by short men and the harms caused, including stories of heinous, callous bigotry.
(To which I say: yes let's please work together to be better to each other. Let's start from the assumption that it is human nature to be prejudiced and we all need to work to overcome our biases, rather than dividing ourselves into "x-ist"/"not-x-ist".)
I actually suspect that there may in fact be more male-focused gender identity discussion on HN than female-focused, but I haven't done the research. The misperception about that arises because men may not classify their own identity discussions as identity discussions.
Well, the HN guidelines for downvoting consider disagreement a legitimate criteria. I take the downvotes as connoting mostly disagreement rather than a judgment that I was commenting in bad faith or posting something substance-free.
The disagreement may be unsurprising, but I'd rather be persuasive. I'm not chasing "heretic" cred.
I'm basically an expert in retail automobiles being heavily involved in car racing, selling cars for Audi Porsche for over a decade, and have a mechanical engineering degree. The amount of misinformation I see on Jalopnik articles, and the comments, is staggering. I attempted to post civil replies and corrections countless times. I was never 'ungrayed'. Not only did I eventually stop using the site, I can only imagine the thousands of people that missed out on useful knowledge.
I have found that I'm always most disappointed in the comments in areas that I know something about, and I rarely comment on such article (luckily it doesn't happen that often). To be fair though I don't see HN as some kind of authoritative information source, it's just a place for somewhat like minded people to come and shoot the shit about stuff. So people have some dumb opinions about cars, they just want to talk about it, they're not writing legislation or something. It's like overhearing a conversation in a coffee shop, you can walk over and tell the people they're wrong, but my experience is that rarely leads to any kind of comeaderie. Better to just take part in the conversation and not worry if people are wrong (not that I'm good at following my own advice)
That's a totally rational point about general coffee shop etiquette. But for an automotive website to have a comments section where only approved people can comment, and someone clearly posting well thought out details can't even get approved to post... Has a problem.
Over the years I've left a couple hundred comments on Jezebel and TheRoot. I'd say a third or so have gotten ungreyed — almost exclusively replies on existing threads that have been either approved or replied to by the author of the parent comment, in the same mechanism as RadioPaper.
Gawker staff used to participate in the comments, but those days are long gone. That means that a top-level comment by anybody who isn't already pre-approved will almost certainly remain in the greys.
I miss the way it was, but the Gawker properties have gone through multiple wringers.
So I agree that the Gawker properties have serious problems, but I think that the commenting mechanism actually yields some pretty great results. It would be fab if Radiopaper could iterate and improve on that model!
Stupid people consider comments that disagree with anything they say “low-grade harassment”. This is visible all of the time when you look at people repeating falsehoods even about mundane things (not even hot button political issues). They become defensive about “being called out”.
We absolutely should not be encouraging any “conversation” systems that let people just hide any comment that they don’t pre-approve.
I don't know how to phrase this without seeming rude, but this idea at its very core seems terrible and short lived. The only way I can possibly see this ending is with an aggressive echo chamber culture that drives off everyone else.
I've seen forum cliques and mass blocking kill off many sites back in the day, and this design would empower this attitude in such a way that it could never be changed.
What about a system where the unapproved comments are published, but mildly hidden/deprioritized?
The idea being that if viewers can see what the OP doesn't approve of, they can make a judgment as to whether that OP is making good-faith arguments and accepting reasonable replies or whether they are just trying to build an echo chamber
Sock-puppet bots are definitely a risk for us, as ordinary bots are for other sites. Our core mechanism is complemented by, and does not replace, the standard anti-spam, anti-bot techniques.
Additionally, other users on Radiopaper will understand the mechanism. So, if they see a controversial post with 100% fawning replies, they're going to understand what's happening, and discount the credibility of those replies accordingly.
An interesting feature would be to allow people to "disagree but show" for comments they disagreed with but considered at least thoughtful/civil/in good faith, and then combine that with user stats:
When other comment on my posts:
- % rejected
- % disagreed but shown
- % accepted
When I comment:
- % rejected
- % disagreed but shown
- % accepted
This would incentivize openness and good faith conversation, and make abusers on either front (trolling or over-policing) instantly visible.
An earlier iteration of the site actually had a set of reactions that included a 'disagree' option, with something like what you're proposing in mind. We ended up removing reactions from the product temporarily for the sake of simplicity, but hope to add them back in shortly.
The full set was -Agree -Disagree -Interesting -Beautiful.
It would be nice if a moderation process allowed people to distinguish between comments which are "correct, but expressed poorly" and those which are deemed "incorrect, but expressed politely".
The former comments would present an opportunity for someone to try to reword them (and possibly steelman them), while the latter would be a signal to the commenter that people disagreed but appreciated their good faith effort to engage constructively.
The goal here seems to be twofold. On the one hand, to put the onus on the one receiving messages from the troll or heckler to either stay silent and not give them a voice, or respond and allow the world to see the negative comment. On the other hand, with respect to the troll responding to a comment, many trolls don't care if they're seen as such.
And trolls aside, it seems that boring messages are less likely to receive a reply than ones that are more inflammatory or generally compelling. Is that true?
An approach where comments have to be seconded by someone else has been tried before. It doesn't work unless either 1) the community is small, or 2) you have some means of verifying the identity, or at least that it's a unique person, of the seconder.
It's the usual spam problem. If people can generate identities cheaply, "who" based blocking will not work.
What do you mean "drive thru fast food"? Why would people want to do that, and not have a table and chairs, especially when the price is the same? Plus, what's to prevent someone from ordering and just driving away without paying? It would be almost impossible to catch them, after all. Why would anyone wait in line, with their car, burning gas and inhaling the fumes from the next car, right before ordering a meal?
> > * The key mechanism that makes Radiopaper different from other social networks, and more resistant to trolling and abuse, is that messages are not published until the counterparty replies or accepts your comment.
>Edit: Also if enough people of the same ideological leaning (or an army of bots) did this and engaged only with themselves, it could give the illusion that the general sentiment of users of your service is aligned in some belief or system of ideals or w.e? Idk, maybe I’m just spewing nonsense.. I like the overall idea and I wish your team the best of luck.
It works like that in almos all cases where there is user voting system that can result in comment being invisible for other users. As one side gains momentum, it is for them easier and easier to block distending voices. After some time discussions start to look one sided and people that disagree just stop trying to engage. That feedback loop in the end turn such forum into an echo chamber(loaded term, but no side is free of it). Even more if moderators are on their side.
But there are also counter examples. Cases where models/theories advocated by comments are so disjointed from reality, facts that there is nothing you can even disagree on.
So there is argument for blocking harmful (in the end all of them end this way) misinformation to stop its effects on readers. But this approach is ripe for abuse, there is little stopping one from lumping into such category, theories/models one simply don't like/disagree with.
In the end, this is one of the reasons why assessing if something is true is hard, even harder if you add Internet into the mix.
In the end we are not perfect logical machines with same memory, we have flaws in our brains that can be used agnaist it, to persuade it into believing falsehoods.
. Does this mean if someone doesn’t agree with your comment they can ignore it entirely, and nobody else in the conversation will ever know the comment was made? If that’s the case then wouldn’t it be possible to manufacture a sense of agreement (in the thread) by dismissing all unfavorable comments? Edit: Also if enough people of the same ideological leaning (or an army of bots) did this and engaged only with themselves, it could give the illusion that the general sentiment of users of your service is aligned in some belief or system of ideals or w.e? Idk, maybe I’m just spewing nonsense.. I like the overall idea and I wish your team the best of luck.