|
|
|
|
|
by trod123
596 days ago
|
|
It wasn't always like that. The actual solution is something that all forums have done for decades starting in the 90s with BBS/moderated usenet groups. You only allow moderators to do the actual moderating. You don't allow upvotes or downvotes because they are used following a sybil attack structure (many sock-puppet accounts to one person) to silence or amplify messages. You have a flag button (which they already have in place for HN), to report content that should be flagged for violating rules. Those that report spurious (good) content get warned/punished for abusing the flag features. They may have the feature silently revoked (shadowbanned) for abuses, or banned for other activity suggesting the accounts are sockpuppets (i.e. going directly to an article when normal viewing requires first loading the index, then following a link with the associated metadata including the referrer to get to the page to make a report. It really is that simple. This moderates, and it limits bad actors, its still done in most online forums that are still around; because it works. |
|
What about this? Sounds like it may "silence" people who flag stuff that [those in power] think should not be flagged. How is that different from you thinking that you are silenced because people did not like what you wrote? Someone could feel like they get silenced/warned/punished because they genuinely flag what they see as inappropriate content, right?