Facebook, Tumblr, and Wordpress all give authors this power. Why is it catastrophic here, where it wasn’t there? Or do you think moderation has turned out to be catastrophic in those places?
I am not PDV, so perhaps he would answer differently, but here’s my take:
On Facebook and Tumblr, this has absolutely turned out to be catastrophic. (To be clear, Facebook and Tumblr are a pair of massive catastrophes for many reasons and in many ways; this particular issue is just another house fire in the middle of a nuclear conflagration.)
“Wordpress” is an inapt comparison. The relevant unit there is the individual Wordpress blog. We can observe two things:
All Wordpress blog owners have the ability to delete comments tracelessly; and this does indeed affect the kinds of discussions that can be, and are, had, in such places. But…
Wordpress blog owners vary dramatically on the extent to which they use this power; and some have gained a reputation for basically never using it. You will find that such blogs are very different places from the blogs on which the owner does use his comment-deletion power…
… which once again points to the critical necessity of being able to tell when (and how often, etc.) someone is using such a power; hence the need for a moderation log.
Wordpress seems like a very apt comparison, since LessWrong is also being conceptualized as a bunch of individual blogs with varying moderation policies.
… which once again points to the critical necessity of being able to tell when (and how often, etc.) someone is using such a power; hence the need for a moderation log.
Does Wordpress have such a system?
(To be clear, I support the idea of a moderation log. I’m just curious whether it’s actually as necessary as you claim.)
No, at least, not in an automated way without plugins, and not that I can recall seeing on any Wordpress blog I’ve visited. And I don’t think I’d want one for my own Wordpress blog; comments there fall very neatly into two categories, “legitimate comments that I want to keep” and “spam by automated web crawlers that I want to obliterate without a trace”. I wouldn’t want a public moderation log if that log was just going to be a list of spam links.
FYI, a major point of disagreement of mine is that I’d be pretty surprised if a SlatestarCodex that didn’t have the moderation log would have a dramatically different comment section. I think the comment quality is determined primarily by founder effects (i.e. what does Scott talk about, and which initial friends of his comment regularly?)
(insofar as it did have a different comment section, I suspect it’d be one that you liked slightly less and I liked slightly more. In general the comments have gotten better as Scott has been willing to ban people more arbitrarily AFAICT, and I don’t have a sense that the people who’s comments I value would leave if the mod list was gone or never implemented, but wouldn’t be surprised if you had the reverse sense)
I think SSC without the moderation log absolutely would have a dramatically different comment section, but… I hesitate to speak of the reason in public because it touches on certain issues that, as I understand, Scott prefers not to see discussed overtly in connection with the site, and I’d like to respect that preference. However, I think this is an important matter; perhaps we could discuss it privately? I can be found via webchat at chat.myfullname.net, or by email at myfirstname@myfullname.net.
In general the comments have gotten better as Scott has been willing to ban people more arbitrarily AFAICT
I think this is likely true (which is to say, it’s true that Scott has been willing to ban people more, and it’s true that the comment section has improved; correlation is of course not causation, but it does seem plausible in this case).
However, I think without the mod log, things would be different (see above).
Facebook, Tumblr, and Wordpress all give authors this power. Why is it catastrophic here, where it wasn’t there? Or do you think moderation has turned out to be catastrophic in those places?
I am not PDV, so perhaps he would answer differently, but here’s my take:
On Facebook and Tumblr, this has absolutely turned out to be catastrophic. (To be clear, Facebook and Tumblr are a pair of massive catastrophes for many reasons and in many ways; this particular issue is just another house fire in the middle of a nuclear conflagration.)
“Wordpress” is an inapt comparison. The relevant unit there is the individual Wordpress blog. We can observe two things:
All Wordpress blog owners have the ability to delete comments tracelessly; and this does indeed affect the kinds of discussions that can be, and are, had, in such places. But…
Wordpress blog owners vary dramatically on the extent to which they use this power; and some have gained a reputation for basically never using it. You will find that such blogs are very different places from the blogs on which the owner does use his comment-deletion power…
… which once again points to the critical necessity of being able to tell when (and how often, etc.) someone is using such a power; hence the need for a moderation log.
Wordpress seems like a very apt comparison, since LessWrong is also being conceptualized as a bunch of individual blogs with varying moderation policies.
Does Wordpress have such a system?
(To be clear, I support the idea of a moderation log. I’m just curious whether it’s actually as necessary as you claim.)
No, at least, not in an automated way without plugins, and not that I can recall seeing on any Wordpress blog I’ve visited. And I don’t think I’d want one for my own Wordpress blog; comments there fall very neatly into two categories, “legitimate comments that I want to keep” and “spam by automated web crawlers that I want to obliterate without a trace”. I wouldn’t want a public moderation log if that log was just going to be a list of spam links.
FYI, a major point of disagreement of mine is that I’d be pretty surprised if a SlatestarCodex that didn’t have the moderation log would have a dramatically different comment section. I think the comment quality is determined primarily by founder effects (i.e. what does Scott talk about, and which initial friends of his comment regularly?)
(insofar as it did have a different comment section, I suspect it’d be one that you liked slightly less and I liked slightly more. In general the comments have gotten better as Scott has been willing to ban people more arbitrarily AFAICT, and I don’t have a sense that the people who’s comments I value would leave if the mod list was gone or never implemented, but wouldn’t be surprised if you had the reverse sense)
I think SSC without the moderation log absolutely would have a dramatically different comment section, but… I hesitate to speak of the reason in public because it touches on certain issues that, as I understand, Scott prefers not to see discussed overtly in connection with the site, and I’d like to respect that preference. However, I think this is an important matter; perhaps we could discuss it privately? I can be found via webchat at chat.myfullname.net, or by email at myfirstname@myfullname.net.
I think this is likely true (which is to say, it’s true that Scott has been willing to ban people more, and it’s true that the comment section has improved; correlation is of course not causation, but it does seem plausible in this case).
However, I think without the mod log, things would be different (see above).
Yup, happy to discuss that privately. Will probably ping you later tonight.
They don’t have intellectual progress as a goal.