Would you bother with any of those sites if your typical experiance was to find hundreds of messages full of racist junk, obscenities and goatse.cx links and just two vaguely on topic posts?
Is that what happened though? My impression was the troll's posts were still in the minority. (I haven't visited the site...)
If not, perhaps some sort of trusted-user moderation system?
The point is, it's easier (and more cost-effective) if the users of a site moderate it.
The point is, what is the most effective way to deal with trolls? 1) eliminate their motivation to troll (which probably involves changing a lot of fundamental things about our society, starting with why chicks don't dig geeks...) 2) let them have their say, and include technological methods to allow anyone else to filter out their posts.
If the troll could defeat a user-moderation system by opening up new accounts and modding himself up, perhaps they could use some sort of "trusted user" moderation system (like k5).
Technology can make crying fire in a crowded theater ineffectual. Fire detectors, for example.
In cyberspace, you can make the troll invisible to those who don't want to see him, yet still remain visible to those who do.
Freedom of speech is limited now partly because we don't have the means to allow people to completely ignore or filter out speech they don't want to see. But technology can give us those means.
If you are a company, you might want to avoid the appearance of censorship (because people might think you are censoring anyone with negative experiences with your company's products).
A solution: the forum could use community-based moderation. Trolls could be invisible by default, but visible to those who want to see everything and won't be offended by the language, etc.
I would like to see the company try a moderation system, so the troll would be invisible to those who don't want to see trolls, but visible to those who want to read everything.
If the future does posses inexpensive replacements for humans across all sectors, what happens to the value of human life?
That depends on us. What would be best (in my opinion) is to free humans from the duty of working for a living, and let each pursue whatever happiness they choose.
It requires a rethinking of economic theory and the "work ethic", but I believe it would result in more rapid advancement for the human race. Either that or the robots would rebel and take over...
No one should have to be a waiter. The waiter/coders may code robot waiters that will do the job better (never be discourteous (unless that's what the customer likes), be available 24/7, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Would you bother with any of those sites if your typical experiance was to find hundreds of messages full of racist junk, obscenities and goatse.cx links and just two vaguely on topic posts?
Is that what happened though? My impression was the troll's posts were still in the minority. (I haven't visited the site...)
If not, perhaps some sort of trusted-user moderation system?
The point is, it's easier (and more cost-effective) if the users of a site moderate it.
The point is, what is the most effective way to deal with trolls? 1) eliminate their motivation to troll (which probably involves changing a lot of fundamental things about our society, starting with why chicks don't dig geeks...) 2) let them have their say, and include technological methods to allow anyone else to filter out their posts.
If the troll could defeat a user-moderation system by opening up new accounts and modding himself up, perhaps they could use some sort of "trusted user" moderation system (like k5).
One element if "freedom" you seem to forget is "I" also have the right to ignore you and not listen to you.
Exactly. On the internet, we have the technology to give you this ability, without abridging anyone's right to free speech.
Why don't they just use moderation, like slashdot and kuro5hin do?
They could just moderate him so that people offended by trolls wouldn't have to see him.
Technology can make crying fire in a crowded theater ineffectual. Fire detectors, for example.
In cyberspace, you can make the troll invisible to those who don't want to see him, yet still remain visible to those who do.
Freedom of speech is limited now partly because we don't have the means to allow people to completely ignore or filter out speech they don't want to see. But technology can give us those means.
There exist means to allow users who don't want to be bothered by trolls, to ignore them.
This is how cyberspace differs from real life (so far...).
In cyberspace, you can completely ignore the troll, by making his comments invisible to you. In real life there is no such option (yet...).
There's a difference: in cyberspace, the technology exists to allow you to completely ignore the troll (make his comments invisible to you).
Moderate him into invisibility for all those who are offended by trolls.
The difference is, no one gets physically hurt by troll comments. Sticks and stones, etc.
Technology exists to filter out troll posts for those who don't want to see them, while still making them available for those who do.
Yes, I agree that voter or user moderation would be the best solution for the company in question.
It might be in their best interests to avoid the appearance of censorship of people who have had negative experiences with their products.
Why don't they try moderation? So that the troll comments would be invisible to all except those who aren't offended by the language, etc.
If you are a company, you might want to avoid the appearance of censorship (because people might think you are censoring anyone with negative experiences with your company's products).
A solution: the forum could use community-based moderation. Trolls could be invisible by default, but visible to those who want to see everything and won't be offended by the language, etc.
I would like to see the company try a moderation system, so the troll would be invisible to those who don't want to see trolls, but visible to those who want to read everything.
There is a way of getting back at trolls - through comments, and moderation.
Point out why they are wrong. Or moderate them so that those who don't want to see troll comments won't.
If you yell and scream in a public place, other people have no way to filter you out. But on the internet, it's different...
Have they tried some sort of community moderation system?
Online, we have the technology for each person to be able to filter out what they don't want to see. Post ratings are one scheme.
If you can eliminate what offends you from your sight, and I can still see it (if I choose), it's the best of both worlds, no?
Why in the world should they have to hire moderators or anything else to get rid of some a$$hole who has nothing better to do with his time?
Why not use some sort of community-moderation scheme, like slashdot or k5 or wikipedia?
Yes this would be the best solution.
Another would be, eliminate all motivation to lie.
But if you're not actually causing harm to anyone, you shouldn't be prosecuted for contributing something.
The fear is that posts could be used unfairly against you. Whistleblowers, people protesting unjust laws, people making jokes, etc.
If the future does posses inexpensive replacements for humans across all sectors, what happens to the value of human life?
That depends on us. What would be best (in my opinion) is to free humans from the duty of working for a living, and let each pursue whatever happiness they choose.
It requires a rethinking of economic theory and the "work ethic", but I believe it would result in more rapid advancement for the human race. Either that or the robots would rebel and take over...
I think it was Bernard Malamud who said something like "any man writing honestly about his own life is interesting." I agree...
Well, how many drowning victims ate ice cream right before swimming and cramped up?
No one should have to be a waiter. The waiter/coders may code robot waiters that will do the job better (never be discourteous (unless that's what the customer likes), be available 24/7, etc.).