Since gender is a social construct with no physical meaning it means he isn't wrong, everyone is allowed to decide how many genders there are in their own mind. His social construct just has 2 genders, others might have more.

[flagged]

[flagged]

This is definitely true here and probably true in lots of other areas.

I have a friend who didn’t know who won the US presidential election until I told him. He just had other things going on. Part of me envies that kind of focus.

I'm pretty sure that they're aware of the concept but not the term CSAM.

CSAM is just the latest iteration of the term we use for the concept due to the euphemism treadmill.

https://youtu.be/hSp8IyaKCs0?si=l5BbV39-rxC4UY8t

There's ultimately no getting around that kind of segmentation. You can't make everybody read what you want them to read.

If you don't let people control what they encounter, whether by signing up for aggressively moderated communities or subscribing to automated curators or just manually black/white-listing as they see fit, they'll find themselves dissatisfied with all the noise and move on.

Unmoderated social media is not a solution to "zealous communities" and "samethink" -- through self-selection, it just becomes a haven for whatever zealotry or samethink happens to organically dominate it.

In Bsky there is built in support for publishing and subscribing to different algorithms or feeds, and these will apply different block lists and moderation. People will subscribe to multiple feeds. It's like how there are different news channels or news sites. You follow multiple of them.

> I have a feeling that this is going to create a weird thing of some magnitude where accounts end up on popular blacklists for poor reasons and have no recourse.

This actually has already kind of occurred with moderation lists and the solution has generally been to strike down list managers who abuse their authority and block them (as you can't normally add someone who has blocked you to their lists).

This is just complaining about the free speech of others though. A moderation list isn't anything more then an opinion.

That's the thing: no one is obligated to not create an echo chamber if they want to be in one.

> that in time it might develop into zealous communities of samethink

yeah, this is reddit in a nutshell. Anyone that pointed out that Harris is going to lose the election because of x reasons was ridiculed. Among other things.

It’s already happened, for instance there are multiple blocklists that try to remove as many furries as possible (which personally is a benefit, although you may think differently). We also have more political ones, mostly anti-“right wing” as bsky trends more “left”. The more extreme elements of Twitter were the first to evacuate, so it’s no surprise that they’re already attempting to rebuild their algorithmically defined echo chambers. Dissenting opinions cause 3d6 psychic damage, after all.

Some people seem to get immense satisfaction and pleasure out of censoring other people online.

It's something I've seen time and time again, in a wide variety of discussions forums, for decades now.

Such people will happily do it for free, and they're willing to dedicate many hours per day to it, too.

I don't understand their motivation(s), but perhaps it simply gives them a sense of power, control, or influence that they otherwise don't have in their lives outside of the Internet.

The internet has been run on volunteer moderators for a long long long long long time.

> Who is going to do that job as a volunteer

There could be a system whereby if you see something bad in your feed you can report it.

you really think Google/Facebook/… can’t do it reliably? :-)

For context, one of the core Bluesky developers was very involved in Scuttlebutt. It was a deliberate decision to not make AT more similar to SSB.

https://www.pfrazee.com/blog/why-not-p2p

There was an influx of less than savory characters after reddit censorship of some unfortunate subs, but I don't think voat was created for "bad actors", which is why OP's question is relevant.

On Bluesky you have different algorithms/feeds which solves this problem. You subscribe to multiple feeds, which show you different content using different moderation and block lists. Sort of like you read different news sites and watch different news channels. Whatever feed you find that you enjoy the most is the one you spend the most time on.

if they had a rule in the autoblock subscription that if a name appears in 3 or more (configurable) subscribed moderation lists it gets autoblocked, then users could stop following bad actors and change what moderation lists they use over time with less large impact to their experience. if you see messages from someone and they're on one of your block lists, you might reconsider the list. if they're on 2 you might consider personally blocking them, and if on 3+ you'd never see them. make blocks require a reason as well that the user will see alongside their block.

Then unsubscribe from that blocklist.

It'd be neat if you could create conditional blocklists. Like only whoever X person AND Y person block will be blocked from my feed. And so on...

I don't think that'd solve the problem, but it would marginally help (and should be better than the status quo)

Being 'at the whims' of whoever maintains the blocklist isn't unique to this style of moderation - when it's Twitter, you're at the whims of the company - but at least it means you can use other blocklists if/when the good ones go to shit, or can start a community-ran blocklist.

Can you explain why this is funny? What's the joke?

> good actors

Aha... dont be naïve... what is the definition of "good" in 2024? Take the US population for example... 50% will say your intentions are "good", the other half will not!

What are you doing here then?

What about using TPM modules? I've been researching these modules lately, primarily for use in online video games. From my understanding, you can use TPMs to effectively ban players (TPM ban) based on their hardware. This would mean every time an account is banned, the bad actor would have to switch to a different TPM. Since a TPM costs real money, this places a limit on the scalability of a bad actor.

I disagree, I think we’re pretty close to having LLMs removing anything that doesn’t fit the “tone” of the board.

One idea I had (feel free to steal this idea for your own use) was a one-time crypto payment to create an account. Of course you can't prevent bots from doing that, but if the price is right then I think it might greatly limit the number of bots on the platform as well as possibly limit the number of low-quality accounts.

But you don't know what you don't know, so I might be missing something that makes this pointless.

How does proof of work prevent bots or spam? Most of these bots run full-blown browsers now.

I like how nobody on HN seems to understand how poverty works.

Ages ago Metafilter was $5 for a lifetime registration. It was a great site and community for a long time.

Strongest, yes. Most profitable, no.

Maybe that's the key... sites should not become so large that it creates big echo chambers for one person to reach millions, it keeps other people having to search for answers and do their own research instead of just everyone listening to the same group of idiots.

Perhaps you could also force a limit on how much time was spent (or how many posts made in X time) on the site.

Sure, but that influence has not exactly been positive. That's the catch I think. It's much easier to exert negative influence than positive influence.

Such as?

It does but that’s not what a large scale scalable corp is trying to achieve. You want as many participants as possible enjoying themselves for as long as possible.

[flagged]

The baseline model is reddit. You start at 0, and if you get negative you're timegated from replying. HN has a karma system as well. You need 500 karma to downvote (or something to that effect).

Honestly, I think something like a StackExchange lite reputation system could work well here. But as more for a credibility system than an authority one. Someone with a good reputation (by the users and the site itself) is probably making more credible reports than a newer person or a troll.

You can't fully sanitize the LLM input from extra instructions. Or at least you can't prove you've done it. (For today's systems) You can try very hard and the special markers for the start/end of the system/user prompt help a lot... Yet, we still get leaked prompts of popular models available every few weeks, so that issue is never fully solved.

its probably off topic but I still get the feeling that trying to prevent undesireable llm app behavior still stinks of "enumerating and blocking badness". at least with procedural programming you have a shot at enumerating just the good stuff and have a concrete set of escapes you need to do with your outputs, this just doesn't seem to exist with many of these llms.

Not really. An LLM is still just a big black box token predictor. Finetunes make them remarkably capable at following instructions but it's far from watertight, and it's real hard to sanitise some arbitrary input text when LLMs will understand multiple languages, mixes thereof, and encodings like base64 and rot13.

[flagged]

Counterpoint:

  while True:
    requests.post(api_url, json={"username": "@jrvarela56", "message": "hello"})

Moderation is noise reduction, undesirable content (junk mail, male junk, threats, even just uninteresting content) is noise, the stuff you want is signal, usability requires a good signal to noise ratio. Speech can be either signal or noise.

So if I posted your home address, social security number, bank account and routing numbers, your work address, pictures of you, your spouse, your kids, the schools they go to, your license plate numbers, pictures of your car and its real time location that moderators can't take that down if they believe in free speech?

Interesting world we live in then.

Most people would be OK with suppressing CSAM. At least I hope most people are.

I do not have a right to put signs promoting my beliefs in your front yard. Preventing me from doing that is not a prohibition of free speech. What’s going to slay me is that the group that bitched and moaned about twitter preventing free speech have turned it into a hellhole nobody wants to be in. Now they will come over and say the same about Blue Sky??? Guys - you can post your ridiculous nonsense on X… nobody is infringing on your right to free speech.

It isn't that clear cut. If you are trying to say something on a forum and a bot farm immediately gives you a thousand downvotes, will banning those bots increase or decrease free speech on that forum?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

No you get flagged and banned for breaking the rules. The fact you can't comprehend this is on you.