Slashdot Mirror


Comments About Comments

theodp writes "This weekend's NY Times is all-about-the-comments. First, Michael Erard recounts the history of Web site comments and explains how their technical origins have shaped the actual commentary we've come to expect as usual today. On dealing with people-behaving-badly, Erard writes, 'Only a few [high-traffic sites] seem to have tried user-moderation systems like the one developed by Slashdot's creator, Rob Malda. Founded in 1997, Slashdot rapidly began to suffer from what Malda called 'signal-to-noise-ratio problems' as tens of thousands of users showed up. Rather than embracing the chaos (which was a hallmark of Usenet, another digital channel of communications) or locking things down with moderators (which e-mail lists did), Malda figured out a way for users to moderate one another. Moderation became like jury duty, something you were called to do.' Next, NY Times community manager Bassey Etim, who oversees 13 comment moderators, offers up his comments on comments, agreeing that 'the comments are where the real America is.' Finally, there's Gawker's next-generation Kinja, which aims to further blur the lines between stories, blog entries, and comments."

66 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Personally, I like making comments on comments. I especially like self-referencing ones.

    1. Re:Like this? by flatt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moderation is important, otherwise discussion is reduced to inane blather. #yolo #swag #grits

  2. So many by djupedal · · Score: 2, Funny

    . . . comments on my comments!

  3. I've got 14 mod points by Andrio · · Score: 3, Funny

    Earn my blessing, or my wrath!

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    1. Re:I've got 14 mod points by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Funny

      except you can't use them in this thread...

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:I've got 14 mod points by intermodal · · Score: 2

      Not in this thread (unless things have changed since I last had mod points), that's another good thing about user-moderation. You can prevent people from using them as a weapon in discussions they themselves have posted in.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:I've got 14 mod points by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can prevent people from using them as a weapon in discussions they themselves have posted in.

      Bah, no competent Slashtroll has less than 4 accounts to cycle. One to post, two to upmod, a fourth to badly argue against the initial post, and two anonymous comments mocking everyone.

      I've thought about setting up a second, sock-puppet account with which to argue with myself, but haven't yet, either due to laziness or a general lack of self-interest; not sure which, and really don't care enough to bother with it.

      PS yes, that sounded as insane in my head as it does on the screen. Fuck it, it's Monday - posting anyway :)

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:I've got 14 mod points by knarfling · · Score: 5, Funny

      I tried having multiple accounts, but the arguments between accounts quickly got out of hand.

      At first, it was just the other account made way too many stupid arguments, but it soon escalated to threats of physical violence. I had to keep a close watch on myself to keep me from slashing my own tires. (I tried hiding, but I quickly learned that I knew where I lived and where I liked to hide.)

      After two or three "unfortunate incidents" I decided to close all but one of the accounts. Things settled down for a while, but I still have to keep a close eye on me in case I go back and login to one of the "closed" accounts.

      ---
      Only two of my personalities have delusions, but one of them is paranoid and the other is out to get him.

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
    5. Re:I've got 14 mod points by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, but there's the evil metamoderation. I've had my own comments come up when metamoderating!

      Muahahahaha!!!

    6. Re:I've got 14 mod points by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've thought about setting up a second, sock-puppet account with which to argue with myself, but haven't yet, either due to laziness or a general lack of self-interest...

      Or are you afraid that the sock-puppet account will get moderated more favorably than your original account?

  4. The most valuable part of some sites by iampiti · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's obvious that comments are what make some websites attractive. This is one of them.
    In Slashdot I usually find very interesting what other people think about the news. Sometimes, there're some jewels: Comments about people who really know what the news is about and offer their perspective. I same those comments as bookmarks. I wonder why there's not a "favorite" option to save them.

    1. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      And the rest of the time, we're subjected to people shouting how much they disagree with the parent, usually in the most uninteresting manner possible, usually focusing on a tangential piece of the parent post, really beating the drum on how wrong it is. This post is almost certainly no exception, because while I agree with the premise of your post, I find that it misses the massive amount of chaff(that gets modded up, no less) that hides the wheat.

    2. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I same those comments as bookmarks. I wonder why there's not a "favorite" option to save them.

      Everyone should have a single "Supermod" point once per month that would work as a normal mod point except it would allow going past +5.

      So after the holidays we could quickly read the articles with only the very few +6+ posts.

    3. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by iampiti · · Score: 2

      Of course there's a lot of horrible comments, but that's a given on any site and there's not much you can do about it. In addition, moderation is no silver bullet and can both easily miss good comments and bury good ones because they don't coincide with the majority opinion. My point still stands: There're some great comments and opinions here.

    4. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      You misspeled a word. Therefore your wrong.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    5. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      "It's obvious that comments are what make some websites attractive. This is one of them."

      It's sure as hell not the unique, timely stories with well-edited summaries that keeps people coming back to Slashdot.

    6. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the paradox, asshole.

    7. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      chaff(that gets modded up, no less)

      That's a self-sustaining mechanism of the Slashdot hivemind.

      Despite our best wishes to the contrary, Slashdotters are terribly biased humans. We just know what's right, because we are all of such high intelligence and scientific mind, so we are blind to our own biases. Of course, anyone who agrees with us is probably coming to the same conclusion only because they are smart and rational, too... so we should mod them up, of course, for being such a fine, upstanding Slashdotter like ourselves. Should we then ever need to examine our own judgement, we have the karma system and our comment history showing that we were modded up, reinforcing the consensus regardless of truth.

      This is painfully obvious on any thread concerning law, privacy, Big Data, religion, or economics. The hivemind has made up its mind on most aspects of these matters, so any comment parroting the approved opinion will be modded up, while any comment that opposes will be modded down, regardless of fact. Interestingly, these are fields in which the majority of Slashdotters are not experts, or even likely to be professionally involved in.

      Consider law, for instance. There are very few actual lawyers regularly on Slashdot, and also very few who have any sort of legal education at all, but any story discussing the intricacies of patents or free speech is bound to have hundreds of comments, mostly along the lines of "patents are bad" or "I can say anything, anytime, anywhere, to anyone", and the mods will happily push such comments up to +5, Insightful. Occasionally a real lawyer will stumble in and offer some actual insight, but even if their post is well-received, it is limited to being only equal to the popular drivel, so it is quickly drowned out.

      A system I've seen work well elsewhere is to have admin-promoted "top comments" for each story, where the admins doing the selection are encouraged to pick comments that are relevant, accurate, and unusual. a dozen comments repeating the same sentiment won't be picked, but one that puts forth a well-reasoned argument to the contrary is more likely.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then you simply replace hivemind, for Dice Holdings Approved Minds. That doesn't seem superior on the face of it.

    9. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 2

      Is there a discussion website with a higher signal-to-noise ratio in the comments? Even if the story is total crap, it is not hard to find brilliant comments right here on Slashdot. I don't think we have any reason to complain, as better just does not seem to be possible. (And here I am nominally disagreeing with a comment which explicitly bashes boring comments that do the same... bah)

    10. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Funny

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    11. Re:The most valuable part of some sites by kharchenko · · Score: 2

      You're missing the aim here - it's not to pick one, two or three "best" comments, it's to discount things that are not worth reading. In a article, you end up with hundreds of posts that are moderated as high as they can be (+5). As long as you have that minimal number of moderators who appreciated that comment, it will rise. That's as much input from the moderators as one should want - reduce noise, but don't shape the conversation.

  5. Sorry, didn't read TFA.... by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, didn't read TFA, what are we talking about again? Ah, comments.

  6. C(C(S(C(C())))) by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    I like making comments about comments about a story about comments about comments.

    1. Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Funny

      > 10 print "Comments about ";
      > 20 goto 10
      >

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) by ciderbrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without comment's on spelling's and grammer's and the rage at wrong apostrophe usages' I think these comments's' are missing some \. fundamentals.

    3. Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      You capitalized "Without," you didn't misspell any words, you didn't mistake loose for lose or there for their... grammar fail big time, dude. All you did was use grocer's apostrophes. You didn't even use an apostropheless "aint".

      You're not even trying! Real retarded aliterates do a lot better.

    4. Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you didn't misspell any words

      He misspelled "grammar".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      /*This is a comment in a comment.*/

    6. Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2

      All aliterates are annoying ape-arse aficionados.

  7. The more moderated, the less honest by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The more you moderate a forum, or prevent users from posting anonymously, the less honest it will be. If you really must moderate, do like Slashdot and let the users do it.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The more you moderate a forum, or prevent users from posting anonymously, the less honest it will be.

      And dishonest too - it clips both ends of the curve.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      I have a lifetime ban on moderating, because I up-voted "The First Slashdot Troll Post Investigation"!

    3. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More moderated = more groupthink.

      That is not a good thing.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by barista · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is moderation by site-users more honest than moderation by site-operators? You get biases either way.

      Slashdot's system only lets users mod a comment one point at a time, they can't mod a comment higher than 5, they can't use all their mod point on one comment, they can't mod their own comments, and enough people are given mod points at any one time that the biases should reflect those of the users.

      You can also read the FAQ.

    5. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, without moderation, the noise often overtakes the signal and you're left without any discussion, debate, or sharing of useful information whatsoever. Also not a good thing.

    6. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet it still doesn't work very well. Take a look at any story involving, say, US politics or copyright issues and you will find that any post that strongly disagrees with the groupthink of the majority gets modded as Troll or Flamebait even when it is clearly not.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How is moderation by site-users more honest than moderation by site-operators? You get biases either way.

      A blessed and approved site admin has ultimate authority to delete viewpoints that disagree with his. It's won't have a community feel - it is simply an opinion portal for the admin. And frankly, most people have so many biases that they're unable to pull it off and keep their site both interesting and relevant. The internet's history is littered with these kinds of failures; see kuro5hin for a dramatic example.

      By contrast, on Slashdot each user is given very few mod points, and then only when they participate positively, and is further prevented from moderating in a thread where they've posted. It limits one person's ability to really sway a discussion. Instead, you get a general overall idea of which comments are worth more according to the entire community. (There's also the flag mechanism for notifying an admin of true spam and racist copy pasta trolls, but the admins still have to answer to each other for wielding that weapon.)

      Sure, you could probably farm a bunch of sock puppets and mod-bomb people you disagree with, but there's no payoff. You get no personal benefit or gain out of out-trolling someone, certainly not enough to make it worth the effort.

      It's an elegant solution to a really, really hard problem.

      --
      John
    8. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately it will always depend on the honesty of the moderators. Spreading the power among many moderators is no solution either as the assumption that a group of people is less biased than a single person is wrong and dangerous. People don't arrive at opinions by carefully and rationally weighing all the evidence (not enough time in the world) etc. but by picking them up from other people. 99% of our 'opinions' are memes and we are just carriers. A well picked individual with some effort can overcome their biases (for example as journalists are supposed to be trained to do) but to expect the majority in a large group to do that is crazy.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    9. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by Lithdren · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that says more about the general discussion around things like politics than anything else.

      People dont want to discuss it, they want to yell it at one another loudly. The louder voices tend to 'win' more.

    10. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The simple answer is that there is no perfect moderation system; they all suck in different ways. Democratic systems like that on Reddit give the power of moderation to the users, and democracy is frequently called "tyranny of the majority" for a good reason: unpopular, minority opinions are always suppressed because the majority doesn't like them. The alternative is non-democratic moderation, where the moderation is done by a group of elites, which is what you usually see on sites like newpaper sites. The problem there, of course, is that you're subject not to the biases of the majority of the users, but the biases of the elites or the owners of the websites (so comments the newpaper owners don't like get deleted). Or, you can try to have a hybrid system somewhat like Slashdot has, where there's some elites who have super-moderation capabilities but the users also have powers, and also some of the users are given more powers (metamoderation). This sounds good in theory, but doesn't seem to work out in practice any better than the alternatives, it's just different.

      Personally, I think the big problems with moderation on Slashdot are 1) users don't have many opportunities to moderate (they're only given points once in a while), unlike on Reddit where any user can mod any post at any time, and 2) users aren't allowed to moderate posts in the same discussion as one they post in, which leads to many users (like myself) not bothering to use the moderation points they're given. I don't feel like being restricted from speaking my mind just because I tried to mod up someone's post.

    11. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Serious question: What ideology or opinion constitutes, in your eyes, "the groupthink of the majority"?

      The reason I ask is that I've had people complain about "groupthink" when they encounter resistance to ideas that are demonstrably absurd, e.g. "UFOs piloted by gray-skinned aliens visited Earth, abducting random people out of their beds."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, the funny thing about that is that I've had many very liberal opinions modded into oblivion solely for their conclusions. So I'm having a hard time getting convinced that there's some sort of liberal effort to mod down your posts.

      I took the liberty of reviewing the recent posts of yours that had been modded down. In some cases, you indeed have a legitimate gripe: Reasonable people can differ about the correct way to handle the Syrian civil war, for example. But here's something else you wrote that got modded to -1 quickly:

      Spending money on a bullshit "green" scams does not benefit mankind either. Green energy with Democrats in power is like defense with Republicans in power, a buzzword to facilitate transfer of taxpayer money to private hands.

      Here are some legitimate reasons to mod that down:
      1. The use of the words like "bullshit" and "scam" were unnecessarily abusive. You can argue that the programs in question are a poor use of funds without language like that.
      2. You provided no evidence or logical argument for your position. Among other things, nothing in your post refuted the idea that the green energy programs were exactly what they said they were.
      3. Since green energy programs cost taxpayers approximately 3.5% of the amount we spend on the military, equating them is misleading. (The 3.5% number comes from the $90 billion cited by the Romney campaign divided by approximately $2600 billion reportedly spent on the military over the same period.)

      A non-troll post that would probably not get the same treatment would have been written something like this:
      "Green energy programs in the past have not been very effective. After spending $90 billion on them, green sources still account for only 7.3% of energy consumption. This will be just yet another waste of money."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:The more moderated, the less honest by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is not a good thing.

      Nor is it a bad thing since unpopular opinions are in general unpopular for good reason.. Groupthink exists with or without moderation, in fact if moderation fails to highlight the group's main opinion(s) then it has failed to do what it was designed to do. It's simple really, if you want to know what the group thinks then browse at +4/5, if you want to know what everyone thinks browse at -1.

      Now if we look at your current +5 score, we can deduce that "groupthink==BadThing(TM)" is a popular opinion on Slashdot, not one that I hold myself but never the less it does represent a significant and popular "group thought".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. Re:First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Made even more appropriate by not actually being the first post.

    I never understood the desire to 'first post'. It's like saying "I've not a single useful thought in my head, and look how fast I can let everybody know it!"

  9. 'the comments are where the real America is.' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Horribly depressing.

  10. yo dawg by Mini-Geek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yo dawg, I heard you like comments, so I made a comment on your story about comments on comments, so you can comment while you comment.

    --
    do {print "Mini-Geek Rules!\n";}
    until ($TheEndOfTheWorld);
  11. God help us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'the comments are where the real America is.'

    There was this article recently on Yahoo! Finance about people giving Liberty to prevent a financial melt down.

    Anyway, the article and many commentors parroted the argument that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the financial meltdown. Many commentators and pundits have "reasoned" that the law caused the meltdown because it "forced" banks to lend to poor people who couldn't afford the loans. Did they have data to back up what they said?

    Fuck no! Rush, Hannity, O'Rielly and all their clones pulled it out of their ass.

    Here is what some economists found out

    ...the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

    tl;dr; Most of "Real America" just mindlessly parrots what they see and hear in the media.

    1. Re:God help us! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I fucking pray that Yahoo comments are not "where the real America is," because if they are, we are sooooooooooooooooooo fucked.

      Nothing but a bunch of idiotic, xenophobic racists over there, man, I swear. Hell, I'll go to Yahoo and stick a comment or two of pure factual information, with references, just to balance out the stupid... comments which then get modded into oblivion because I don't follow their groupthink of "Muslims bad, liberty bad, police state and genocide good."

      To reiterate, I really, really fucking hope Yahoo comments are not representative of the pulse of the nation.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:God help us! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Nothing but a bunch of idiotic, xenophobic racists over there, man, I swear.

      A significant portion of America are idiotic, xenophobic racists. For example:
      - In 2013, approximately 15% of Americans believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
      - The newly crowned Miss America has brown skin and dark hair, because her parents were from India. There was a lot of online activity complaining about how horrible it was that we were giving the Miss America award to an Arab who was a member of Al Qaida.
      - Based on recent elections for governor in my home state of Ohio, approximately one third of the electorate who typically vote Republican will not do so if their party's chosen candidate is black, regardless of other factors.
      - "English-only" laws in many states in the US that prohibit state employees from conducting government business in any language other than English. The stated goal of these laws is to prevent other languages, particularly Spanish, from becoming the majority language in the US.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:God help us! by kencurry · · Score: 2

      dude, you should check "Wall Street Journal" sometime. I block non-subscriber posts, and I am still shocked at the juvenile commentary on stories there. Slashdot comments are like a PhD thesis compared to WSJ.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  12. Re:First post! by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you structured it so "last post" was a thing, people would never stop commenting. At least the race to first post is self limiting.

    --
    John
  13. This is beyond stupid. . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    . . . . because of the existence of chatbots, trollbots, etc., since at least the late 1990s (automated software agents programmed to seek and respond in specific patterns), and since contracts have been publicly announced in the last few years (meaning they've been effectively working on them the previous decade!!!) to program "ConsensusBots" --- automated software to "persuade" (i.e., misinform and disinform) large numbers at popular newsy sites and social networking sites --- many, if not most, comments today are highly suspect!

    1. Re:This is beyond stupid. . . . by Nugoo · · Score: 2

      Tell me more about many, if not most, comments today are highly suspect!

      --
      I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
  14. Re:First post! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

    Last Post!!!

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  15. Re:"only a few"? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    This:

    MartinJrMakesPoopVideos: hi everybody i just started my onw chanel, its really awsome even tho their arn't any videos on it, click on my name and check it out cuz as a looser i base my personal validation on how many people look at my channel! I only subscribned to this sooper popular chanel so i could solicit my own garbace in the commnts

    Seriously, can we do something about these kids? Like, send Tonya Harding over to break their shins? I hear she could use the money.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  16. Since moderation is on-topic ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since moderation is on-topic ...

    The biggest weakness with Slashdot's current system is the way that early posts get a disproportionate amount of attention, and mod-points. When a new story shows up, so long as I post within 5-10 minutes it's pretty easy to get modded to +5, even as an AC.

    Try it yourself - as soon as a new story hits, quickly summarize your gut reaction to the summary, hit post, and watch the mod-points accumulate. The downside, of course, is that anybody who shows up late will struggle to get heard amongst the noise.

    Oh yes, and I really dislike it when 50% of an entire comments section consists of replies to one post. This seems to happen because people want their post to get noticed.

    Can anybody think of a good solution to these problems? Or are there other moderation problems which need dealing with?

  17. Problem is as the internet... by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... became widespread and new generations grew up with the internet, 99% of internet comments are mostly garbage. I've found that Websites run by intelligent, educated people who put their real face, name, background on the net tend to be more informative than random commenters as the net has grown. Since as more of the general population and new generation of kids begin to lurk and comment on websites comment quality goes through surges of greatness and mediocrity as generations come and go.

    As an adult I find partisan comments the most uninformed, history and politics for anyone with any intelligence is IMMENSELY complex. Trying to apply black and white solutions and old out-dated 19th century political ideologies to complex problems is not sign of intelligence. Most of slashdot tends to fall into the extremely distorted american political spectrum since most slashdot commenters/moderators are american.

    I find as the internet became a mass phenomenon slashdot comment quality has become almost as awful as the rest of the internet. The political comments tend to be the most uninformed since it highlights the deep indoctrination of the american public. Since most comments tend to be from the most populous country (america), 300 million vs say 30 million in canada.

    So you get a massive boatload of nonsense when anyone mentions politics, anything deep and requiring serious thought and analysis can only usually be found through those who are honest and open and put a face to their opinions.

    Those of us who see the world through technical eyes know many of our current values, ideals and institutions are not in line with what is actually true about the universe. We're doing all sorts of irrational bone headed shit in all areas. I find america and americans bizarre in their adherence to simple minded political and values based sloganeering. It's not the sign of an erudite mind.

    In order to find solutions you have to study how institutions change over time and they must be informed by how the universe and nature actually operate, all of our institutions are totally out of line with this kind of thinking.

  18. Comments are mostly an avenue of hate and tyranny by gameboyhippo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is likely to get modded down to "-1 Disagree", but I guess that's the point. If someone says something positive about religion, protecting their children's innocence, etc... it gets modded down. Don't think like the loud members of the group? Here's a mod down for you. Think that the teleology of the universe points to a cosmic designer? Here's a "-1 Disagree" for you and a bunch of hate to go with it. You must think like the hive mind or go unheard.

    Comment moderation like that on Reddit and Slashdot censors dissension and encourages hate.

  19. No More Anoymous Moderating. by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Moderators should be identified.

    If you are going to moderate, you should be willing to stand behind your moderation. Anonymous moderation leads to people down modding things they simple disagree with rather than flagging actual abuse.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:No More Anoymous Moderating. by Sparton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Moderators should be identified.

      I disagree. Moderators who must be identified would just lead to harassment of moderators. There's always going to be asshats who moderate stuff down they disagree with (and I doubt every asshat who does that being exposed for doing that would change their tune), but I'd foresee that exposing the handles of moderators would be like not allowing anonymous posting; it'd try to cut down on the problem, but also cut out a lot of moderation that doesn't follow the conventional groupthink.

      Much like commenting, at least the choice of moderating anonymously should still be kept (at least for Slashdot's method). Similar to non-anonymous posting, though, non-anonymous moderations being weighted differently could be a possible avenue for improvement.

  20. Re:kinja by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2

    Have you tried Kinja? It is *not* a positive in any sense of the word. It is terrible, bloated software packed with bugs. It often doesn't work at all, or on some major browsers, and when it does work it often screws up any formatting the author attempts.

    Worst of all, it's run by free moderation -- as in, there is no oversight or appeal process for bad moderation calls. You can get into an argument with a moderator and find yourself blocked from the entire site, with no recourse. Kinja enables overzealous moderation and petty forum dictatorships, the situations that many good discussion forums take pains to avoid.

    If Kinja is the future of internet commenting, then internet comments are truly dead. The net will become balkanized groups of friends chatting in their own echo chambers, a worse situation than in the BBS days.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  21. Re:Comments are mostly an avenue of hate and tyran by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    Apparently you are mistaken, since as I reply, your comment has a score of 4.

    It is true that some people mod down comments because they disagree. But there are often other cooler heads who bring balance to the moderation.

    Usually, controversial comments get modded down because there is no actual substance to the comments. And since such posters often start with an attitude of paranoia and overestimate their own importance, they DO get modded down, and they think they are proved right.

  22. Moderate older comments by handy_vandal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like to moderate week-old comments, when I get mod points.

    Imagine the poster's surprise: "Hey! I got modded up for a comment I wrote last week!"

    Gives me a warm feeling: two parts happiness, one part mischief.

    --
    -kgj
  23. Comments by Master+Moose · · Score: 2

    No Comment

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  24. Re:First post! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    " It's like saying "I've not a single useful thought in my head, and look how fast I can let everybody know it!""

    I'm pretty sure you just uncovered the secret to Slashdot's success.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun