83 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2022
    1. for the safety of the LGBTQ community here we refused to engage in mass server blocking and instead encouraged our users to block servers on an individual basis and provided access to block lists for them to do so

      This instance encourages their account holders to actively block for themselves. Pushing agency into their hands, also by providing existing blocklists to make that easier. After all it isn't pleasant to have to experience abuse first before you know whom to block.

    2. In fact we added a feature just for them called subscriptions which allowed them to monitor accounts without following them so they could do so anonymously.

      Providing lurking opportunities for security reasons. Very sensible. Example of actively providing tools that create agency for groups to protect themselves.

    3. s pecifically from the LGBTQ community, onto our server. It turns out many people relied on us not-blocking for their physical safety. There were big name biggots (like milo yanappolus) who were on the network. They used their accounts here to watch his account for doxing so they could warn themselves and their community and protect themselves accordingly

      Having the ability to see what known bigots get up to on social media is a security feature.

    4. allowed people read content from any server (but with strict hate speech rules)

      Blocking means your account holders don't see that part of the fediverse, you're taking away their overview. A decision you're making about them, without them. A block decision isn't only about the blocked server, it impacts your account holders too, and that needs to be part of the considerations.

    5. So there are some servers out there that demand every server int he network block every instance they do, and if a server doesnt block an instance they block then they block you in rettatliation.Their reason for this is quite flawed but it goes like this.. If we federate with a bad actor instance and we boost one of their posts then their users will see it and defeat the purpose of the block. The problem is, this isnt how it actually works. If they block a server and we boost it, they wont see the boost, thats how blocks work.

      There are M instances that block servers that don't block the same servers they do. That seems to defeat the entire concpet of federating (and the rationale isn't correct).

    1. The problem when the asset is people is that people are intensely complicated, and trying to regulate how people behave is historically a miserable experience, especially when that authority is vested in a single powerful individual.
    2. The essential truth of every social network is that the product is content moderation, and everyone hates the people who decide how content moderation works.
  2. Oct 2022
    1. Some social media platforms struggle with even relatively simple tasks, such as detecting copies of terrorist videos that have already been removed. But their task becomes even harder when they are asked to quickly remove content that nobody has ever seen before. “The human brain is the most effective tool to identify toxic material,” said Roi Carthy, the chief marketing officer of L1ght, a content moderation AI company. Humans become especially useful when harmful content is delivered in new formats and contexts that AI may not identify. “There’s nobody that knows how to solve content moderation holistically, period,” Carthy said. “There’s no such thing.”

      Marketing officer for an AI content moderation company says it is an unsolved problem

    1. If the link is in a Proud Boys forum, would you not take any action against it, even if it’s like, “Click this link to help plan”?Are you asking if we have people out there clicking every link and checking if the forum comports with the ideological position that Signal agrees with?Yeah. I think in the most abstract way, I’m asking if you have a content moderation team.No, we don’t have that. We are also not a social media platform. We don’t amplify content. We don’t have Telegram channels where you can broadcast to thousands and thousands of people. We have been really careful in our product development side not to develop Signal as a social network that has algorithmic amplification that allows that “one to millions” amplification of content. We are a messaging platform. We don’t have a content moderation team because (1) we are fully private, we don’t see your content, we don’t know who you’re talking about; and (2) we are not a content platform, so it is a different paradigm.

      Signal president, Meredith Wittaker, on Signal's product vision and the difference between Signal and Telegram.

      They deliberately steered the product away from "one to millions" amplification of content, like for example Telegram's channels.

  3. Jul 2022
  4. Jun 2022
    1. We will continue to listen and work to make Hypothesis a safe and welcoming place for expression and conversation on the web

      What has been done to improve this situation since this post six years ago?

  5. May 2022
    1. https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/05/reader-comments-on-news-sites-we-want-to-hear-what-your-publication-does/

      I'm curious if any publications have experimented with the W3C webmention spec for notifications as a means of handling comments? Coming out of the IndieWeb movement, Webmention allows people to post replies to online stories on their own websites (potentially where they're less like to spew bile and hatred in public) and send notifications to the article that they've mentioned them. The receiving web page (an article, for example) can then choose to show all or even a portion of the response in the page's comments section). Other types of interaction beyond comments can also be supported here including receiving "likes", "bookmarks", "reads" (indicating that someone actually read the article), etc. There are also tools like Brid.gy which bootstrap Webmention onto social media sites like Twitter to make them send notifications to an article which might have been mentioned in social spaces. I've seen many personal sites supporting this and one or two small publications supporting it, but I'm as yet unaware of larger newspapers or magazines doing so.

    2. The Seattle Times turns off comments on “stories that are of a sensitive nature,” said Michelle Matassa Flores, executive editor of The Seattle Times. “People can’t behave on any story that has to do with race.” Comments are turned off on stories about race, immigration, and crime, for instance.

      The Seattle Times turns off comments on stories about race, immigration, and crime because as their executive editor Michelle Matassa Flores says, "People can't behave on any story that has to do with race."

  6. Apr 2022
  7. Dec 2021
  8. Nov 2021
  9. Sep 2021
    1. Mod note: This question is about why XMLHttpRequest/fetch/etc. on the browser are subject to the Same Access Policy restrictions (you get errors mentioning CORB or CORS) while Postman is not. This question is not about how to fix a "No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin'..." error. It's about why they happen.
    2. Please stop posting: CORS configurations for every language/framework under the sun. Instead find your relevant language/framework's question. 3rd party services that allow a request to circumvent CORS Command line options for turning off CORS for various browsers
  10. Jul 2021
  11. Apr 2021
  12. Mar 2021
    1. Take control of it for yourself.

      quite in contrast to the 2021 Congressional Investigation into Online Misinformation and Disinformation which places the responsibility on major platforms (FB, Twitter, YouTube) to moderate and control content.

    1. Q: So, this means you don’t value hearing from readers?A: Not at all. We engage with readers every day, and we are constantly looking for ways to hear and share the diversity of voices across New Jersey. We have built strong communities on social platforms, and readers inform our journalism daily through letters to the editor. We encourage readers to reach out to us, and our contact information is available on this How To Reach Us page.

      We have built strong communities on social platforms

      They have? Really?! I think it's more likely the social platforms have built strong communities which happen to be talking about and sharing the papers content. The paper doesn't have any content moderation or control capabilities on any of these platforms.

      Now it may be the case that there are a broader diversity of voices on those platforms over their own comments sections. This means that a small proportion of potential trolls won't drown out the signal over the noise as may happen in their comments sections online.

      If the paper is really listening on the other platforms, how are they doing it? Isn't reading some or all of it a large portion of content moderation? How do they get notifications of people mentioning them (is it only direct @mentions)?

      Couldn't/wouldn't an IndieWeb version of this help them or work better.

    2. <small><cite class='h-cite via'> <span class='p-author h-card'>Inquirer.com</span> in Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com (<time class='dt-published'>03/18/2021 19:32:19</time>)</cite></small>

    1. Many news organizations have made the decision to eliminate or restrict comments in recent years, from National Public Radio, to The Atlantic, to NJ.com, which did a nice job of explaining the decision when comments were removed from its site.

      A list of journalistic outlets that have removed comments from their websites.

    2. Experience has shown that anything short of 24-hour vigilance on all stories is insufficient.
    1. Meanwhile, the algorithms that recommend this content still work to maximize engagement. This means every toxic post that escapes the content-moderation filters will continue to be pushed higher up the news feed and promoted to reach a larger audience.

      This and the prior note are also underpinned by the fact that only 10% of people are going to be responsible for the majority of posts, so if you can filter out the velocity that accrues to these people, you can effectively dampen down the crazy.

    2. In his New York Times profile, Schroepfer named these limitations of the company’s content-moderation strategy. “Every time Mr. Schroepfer and his more than 150 engineering specialists create A.I. solutions that flag and squelch noxious material, new and dubious posts that the A.I. systems have never seen before pop up—and are thus not caught,” wrote the Times. “It’s never going to go to zero,” Schroepfer told the publication.

      The one thing many of these types of noxious content WILL have in common are the people at the fringes who are regularly promoting it. Why not latch onto that as a means of filtering?

    1. Lori Morimoto, a fandom academic who was involved in the earlier discussion, didn’t mince words about the inherent hypocrisy of the controversy around STWW. “The discussions of the fic were absolutely riddled with people saying they wished you could block and/or ban certain users and fics on AO3 altogether because this is obnoxious,” she wrote to me in an email, “and nowhere (that I can see) is there anyone chiming in to say, ‘BUT FREE SPEECH!!!’” Morimoto continued: But when people suggest the same thing based on racist works and users, suddenly everything is about freedom of speech and how banning is bad. When it’s about racism, every apologist under the sun puts in an appearance to fight for our rights to be racist assholes, but if it’s about making the reading experience less enjoyable (which is basically what this is — it’s obnoxious, but not particularly harmful except to other works’ ability to be seen), then suddenly our overwhelming concern with free speech seems to just disappear in a poof of nothingness.

      This is an interesting example of people papering around allowing racism in favor of free speech.

  13. Feb 2021
    1. What we're after is a low-friction way for website owners to let other people link to their ideas and creations, offering a rich contextual reading experience for audiences, without letting bad actors monopolise the system.

      It is crucial to have an open standard, and I think the people from indieweb already did a lot of the work. Webmentions are just the communication layer, but. microformats may be a great tool to keep in mind.

    1. The solution, he said, was to identify “super-spreaders” of slander, the people and the websites that wage the most vicious false attacks.

      This would be a helpful thing in general disinformation from a journalistic perspective too.

  14. Jan 2021
    1. Group Rules from the Admins1NO POSTING LINKS INSIDE OF POST - FOR ANY REASONWe've seen way too many groups become a glorified classified ad & members don't like that. We don't want the quality of our group negatively impacted because of endless links everywhere. NO LINKS2NO POST FROM FAN PAGES / ARTICLES / VIDEO LINKSOur mission is to cultivate the highest quality content inside the group. If we allowed videos, fan page shares, & outside websites, our group would turn into spam fest. Original written content only3NO SELF PROMOTION, RECRUITING, OR DM SPAMMINGMembers love our group because it's SAFE. We are very strict on banning members who blatantly self promote their product or services in the group OR secretly private message members to recruit them.4NO POSTING OR UPLOADING VIDEOS OF ANY KINDTo protect the quality of our group & prevent members from being solicited products & services - we don't allow any videos because we can't monitor what's being said word for word. Written post only.

      Wow, that's strict.

    1. This has some interesting research which might be applied to better design for an IndieWeb social space.

      I'd prefer a more positive framing rather than this likely more negative one.

    1. Sarah Roberts’s new book Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media (2019)
    2. What will it take to break this circuit, where white supremacists see that violence is rewarded with amplification and infamy? While the answer is not straightforward, there are technical and ethical actions available.

      How can this be analogized to newspapers that didn't give oxygen to the KKK in the early 1900's as a means of preventing recruiting?

  15. Oct 2020
    1. This is the story of how Facebook tried and failed at moderating content. The article cites many sources (employees) that were tasked with flagging posts according to platform policies. Things started to be complicated when high-profile people (such as Trump) started posting hate speech on his profile.

      Moderators have no way of getting honest remarks from Facebook. Moreover, they are badly treated and exploited.

      The article cites examples from different countries, not only the US, including extreme right groups in the UK, Bolsonaro in Brazil, the massacre in Myanmar, and more.

      In the end, the only thing that changes Facebook behavior is bad press.

  16. Sep 2020
    1. What were the “right things” to serve the community, as Zuckerberg put it, when the community had grown to more than 3 billion people?

      This is just one of the contradictions of having a global medium/platform of communication being controlled by a single operator.

      It is extremely difficult to create global policies to moderate the conversations of 3 billion people across different languages and cultures. No team, no document, is qualified for such a task, because so much is dependent on context.

      The approach to moderation taken by federated social media like Mastodon makes a lot more sense. Communities moderate themselves, based on their own codes of conduct. In smaller servers, a strict code of conduct may not even be necessary - moderation decisions can be based on a combination of consensus and common sense (just like in real life social groups and social interactions). And there is no question of censorship, since their moderation actions don't apply to the whole network.

  17. Jul 2020
    1. Overall, the process of moderating individual comments is really really really fucking hard.

      dire need for some IBIS or other, where people can make structured arguments & thread out, rather than this endless growing log of comments that pick up wherever they feel like & push whichever-which-way.

      we need higher fidelity information to begin to moderate effectively.

      this is a really nicely written thread from one of the most ultra-productive extremely-high-quality coders on the planet, detailing what challenges moderators face. and how they are equipped with only: a) moderation of individual comments b) locking threads c) bannings, all fiat acts.

    1. A moderator provides motivation and inertia to an asynchronous computerconference, encouraging interaction between participants while creating asupportive and comfortable environment for discussion.

      So re-starting the conversation where it might have stalled. This might require asking questions or possibly adding on to the topic. In other places, the same process of questioning something might cause people to slow down. You can say, let's reflect on the statement, or can we have a source and maybe interpret this in another manner?

  18. Jun 2020
    1. The creator of a Hypothesis group

      According to this issue in Github, in an LMS environment the creator of the group would be the first instructor-user in a course who creates and launches a Hypothesis-enabled reading. Could someone confirm this? Is this specified somewhere else?

  19. May 2020
  20. Apr 2020
    1. Meta-moderators are chosen by their reputation in the associated area. By domain proximity.

      Meta-moderation: second level of comment moderation. A user is invited to rate a moderator's decision.

    1. students responded to messages more actively and engaged in more in-depth discussions when discussions were moderated by a peer.

      This could be a good argument to push Hypothes.is to introduce some sort of moderation, in combination with the finding that annotation threads would be rare, and not very deep (Wolfe & Neuwirth, 2001)

    1. moderating entities.

      But do this entities have to be central, monolithic? Can't they be distributed, collaborative?

      I usually like to think of the reddit model as a proposal for moderation of web annotation. Reddit is quite flexible as of what it is allowed and what it is not (this has, of course, brought heated debates in the past). But reddit has multiple reddits (as web annotation may have multiple groups or sublayers), each with a set of rules, administered and moderated by one or more people.

      Do you like the moderation rules of one subreddit? You can join and even help with moderation. You don't like them? Then don't join and find another one you feel more comfortable with.

  21. Dec 2019
  22. Aug 2019
    1. Comments are moderated and will only be made live if they add to the discussion in a constructive way. If you disagree with a point, be polite. This should be a conversation between professional people with the aim that we all learn.
  23. Nov 2018
    1. They can spew hate amongst themselves for eternity, but without amplification it won’t thrive.

      This is a key point. Social media and the way it amplifies almost anything for the benefit of clicks towards advertising is one of its most toxic features. Too often the extreme voice draws the most attention instead of being moderated down by more civil and moderate society.

  24. Oct 2018
    1. "I am really pleased to see different sites deciding not to privilege aggressors' speech over their targets'," Phillips said. "That tends to be the default position in so many online 'free speech' debates which suggest that if you restrict aggressors' speech, you're doing a disservice to America—a position that doesn't take into account the fact that antagonistic speech infringes on the speech of those who are silenced by that kind of abuse."
  25. Jul 2017
    1. Comments sections often become shouting matches or spam-riddled.

      They can also become filled with "me too" type of commentary which doesn't add anything substantive to the conversation.

      See also the Why Did you Delete my comment at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?page_id=4338

  26. Apr 2016
    1. Several content moderation experts point to Pinterest as an industry leader. Microsoft’s Tarleton Gillespie, author of the forthcoming Free Speech in the Age of Platform, says the company is likely doing the most of any social media company to bridge the divide between platform and user, private company and the public. The platform’s moderation staff is well-funded and supported, and Pinterest is reportedly breaking ground in making its processes transparent to users. For example, Pinterest posts visual examples to illustrate the site’s "acceptable use policy" in an effort to help users better understand the platform’s content guidelines and the decisions moderators make to uphold them.
  27. Sep 2015
  28. Aug 2015
    1. Hegemonic online voting systems are not useful mechanisms for the creation of equitable online communities, which is a prerequisite for more nuanced and sophisticated collaborative textual interpretation.

      So true. Early design drafts of Hypothesis assumed the typical up/down voting, but I've been pretty opposed to adding it.

  29. Jul 2015
    1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588493

      Grimmelmann, James. "The Virtues of Moderation." April 1, 2015. SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=2588493 keywords: moderation, online communities, semicommons, peer production, Wikipedia, MetaFilter, Reddit 17 Yale J.L. & Tech. 42 (2015) U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-8

  30. Jun 2015
    1. semico m- mons — a resource that is owned and managed as private pro p- erty at one l evel but as a commons at a n other, and in which “both common and private uses are important and impact si g- nificantly on each other.” 42

      Yes, this acknowledgement of the largely private space of the online world is far too often overlooked in utopian views of the Internet as a "commons."

    2. shared infrastru c ture with limited capacity

      Does it?

    3. well - moderated community will have low costs

      If the moderators are unpaid community members?

    4. moderation can increase access to online commun i- ties.

      But doesn't deleting someone's stuff make it less open (at least to them)?

    5. participation in moderation and in setting moderation

      So transparency is critical.

    6. the unlucky YouTube employees who manual ly r e- view flagged videos. 24

      This isn't automated?

    7. r when a comm u- nity is tor n between participants with incompatible goals (e.g. , amateur and professional photogr a phers).

      Are expert and amateur always incompatible in this way? I'm thinking here of how to at once allow for anyone to have a conversation on a page using annotation, but also to surface for discovery expert voices...

    8. moderation by flagg ing unwanted posts for deletion because they enjoy being part of a thriving communit

      Motivating users to take ownership seems key. A simple flag feature could make an active user all the more involved.

    9. Thus, even though it is not pa r- ticularly helpful to talk about Google as a c ommunity in its own rig ht, 21 it and other search engines play an important role in the overall mo d eration of the Web . 22

      Indeed, Google search organizes communities from their inception: which entry points are immediately discoverable and which are not.

    10. ex ante versus ex pos

      Before or after the event. In terms of online community moderation, this likely refers to systems that prevent or punish bad behavior.

    11. norms versus architectu

      From "pathetic dot" theory, popularized Larry Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

      Image Description

      "Architecture" refers to the technical infrastructures that regulate individual behavior. In this case, I suppose that would be the design of online communities?

    12. d. When they do their job right, they cr e- ate the conditions under which cooperation is possib

      This is an obvious point, but one that I think is not necessarily emphasized in discussion of the problem of moderation: it's not just about deleting bad content, it's about enabling good content creation.

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. called on designers and social scientists to ethically embrace their role as the web's “civil servants,”

      Got to read this article itself, but civil servants are civil servants because they are employed by the government, not because they think of themselves that way. I love the idea, but I guess I'm worried that without something more official in place, this ethos cannot be institutionalized or even broadly applied.

    2. dependent on those who use them and on the subjective judgments of the people who provide mutual aid.

      Image Description

      As in "real-life," what do we do about the George Zimmermans of the world, rogue "moderators" claiming a kind of "mutual aid" in their neighborhood watch, but deeply problematic in their views and actions.

    1. They won’t continue to log on if they find their family photos sandwiched between a gruesome Russian highway accident and a hardcore porn video.

      Conjecture!