[magzter]

I generally agree that strict moderation is the key but there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible - ycombinator user activity is next to nothing compared to sites like Facebook/twitter/reddit. Even on Reddit, you see smaller subreddits able to achieve this.

But just like a public park, if 2 million people rock up it's going to be next to impossible to police effectively.

[1718627440]

> there's obviously a certain threshold of users and activity that is hit where this becomes unfeasible

Not really. If 5 people can moderate 1000, surely 5000 can moderate 1 million. Divide et impera, it's not a new idea.

Just keep in mind that in a free market there is supposed to be no profit. If there is, then something is wrong. In this case the companies just don't feel like moderating and following laws.

[taeric]

I'm sure that some of this is influenced by the behavior of the people being moderated? Back to the parks example, it is usually assumed most visitors are in good faith. If there is expectation otherwise, things are usually a bit tougher.

For parks, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that people have to physically be there. That alone is a bit of a moderating factor, I would presume. With online, even 5 people can't moderate 1000 bad faith collaborators?

I don't know that we truly have a way to ensure "person is on other side of this account." And in places that are made to be interfaced from corporations, that isn't even strictly the desire.

[1718627440]

Yes, that probably also claims a factor.

What I was arguing was that employing enough people to moderate should be just cost of business. If that would cost to much there should simply be no business. However the big social media business are right now far from going bankrupt.

[taeric]

Agreed. I meant my post to be an "in addition" for your argument. With the concession that I'm sure there are differences in scale.