[d110af5ccf]

> The cynics self-select themselves out quickly as there's no likes to be earned.

If these are invite-only communities do they actually self select out or do they get kicked out? My experience has generally been that small groups are often cliquish and won't tolerate significant dissent even when it's civil.

I've experienced surprisingly civil and insightful discussion in online spaces that were very nearly unmoderated. It's not for everyone and it's certainly a mixed bag but there's a lot more than just a public/private dichotomy going on in terms of social dynamics.

Even HN is a good example of a solidly public space where I've had countless constructive interactions over many years.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

Some people want constructive interactions, some want lulz and flame wars. Many people want both at different stages in their lives, or even simultaneously on different forums. Just remember you are free not to read and free not to reply. Wish there were AI personal moderators to selectively ignore stuff.

[glass3]

AI moderators don't have to be personal. It would be enough to tag comments as constructive, lulz and flame and let users decide which type they want, or to which degree they want it. The technology of spam-detecting Markov chains should be enough since the users can easily correct the classification.

Since the feature is possible but not used, question remains why users don't need it.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

If I were AI, I would remove any post not containing a link or a number. And remove any comment containing a sequence {capital I followed by a space}. Including this one :)

[braza]

I participate of some invite-only communities for a while and you have a point, being a dissent it’s quite challenging and demands extra reasoning to express that.

On the other side, the real issue moderating any closed invite-only community is that the false positive cost is too high and it can fall apart the entire thing, e.g. 90% of the people stops to post/share/interact.