Disagreeable people also tend to get fired more, in my experience. Perhaps it balances out, which would explain why there are still disagreeable people.
Somebody at Google could write a memo proposing that sexism might not be the only possible explanation of why a majority of their top engineers are male.
On the topic of thread collapsing on HN, I honestly can't believe they still haven't fixed the performance issue. It's not noticeable on small threads, but go to one with thousands of comments (like the iPhone X one), and try collapsing. I've seen threads with noticable 1-2 seconds delay for every collapse.
Are you getting confused between the down arrow to down-vote and the [-] button to collapse? I am assuming there's a down arrow, since I don't have the privilege to down-vote :-)
You say that, but have you considered the downsides?
Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments, and site now has comments all over it that they have no editorial control over whatsoever. People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does?
The musician can display whatever they want on their website; they don't have to host content they don't like. In the "dream" commenting system, the comments are independent; you can apply your own filters and fetch comments from sources the site owner may not approve of.
I disagree. I don't think this is like that at all. Especially given now that comments are displayed on the actual site in question. If you're going to say it's something separate, then now you're talking about Twitter or, more likely, Mastodon.
> Imagine you know someone in the public eye, let's say a musician, with their own website. They enable comments
In my mind it would be the users, not the site owners that would enable the comments.
> People are posting a high amount of offensive content. What do you advise that this musician does?
My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to. Perhaps some mechanisms could be put into the system to make it easy for site owners to suggest a "default" moderation stream that the end-users can opt-in to.
In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary cooperation with its users, but it wouldn't be able to censor opinions that it didn't agree with, because the end users would always be in control of how its stream is filtered and would always be able to verify that on-topic posts aren't censored.
Isn't this now Mastodon? If it's not actually connected to the site in question?
"My advice in this case would be to create a moderator stream that the end users can subscribe to."
That sounds like a pretty complex thing to do, which doesn't solve the problem of, "The comments on my site are overrun with people posting racial slurs."
"In this case the site owners would be able to moderate comments through voluntary cooperation with its users, but it wouldn't be able to censor opinions that it didn't agree with, because the end users would always be in control of how its stream is filtered and would always be able to verify that on-topic posts aren't censored."
I don't believe that's actually a problem, though. You can always go make your own site if you want your voice heard.
We're talking about something like Twitter or Mastodon but (a) can be found using the original URL of the site, as in IPFS or content-addressable networking; and (b) uses distributed opt-in moderation, meta-moderation, and filtering; like a decentralized AdBlock.
It's something that doesn't actually exist yet, but maybe will.
So they're still associated with the site, but don't actually keep people on the site, site owners have no ability to screen content of these comments which are still associated with the site, and it seeks to deny revenue to the site.
I'm sure you'll have hoards of sites signing up for that.
Except it's not, because you still want it to be associated with the site. If you just want to comment on something, you already have Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, your own blog, and probably a dozen other outlets. What you're asking for is the added legitimacy of the site itself, without their consent.
It's literally like having a browser add-on enable comments on a website by appending the Reddit/HN thread after an article [1]. But with the added benefit of the user being able to choose from a number of algorithmic/community moderation strategies to apply to the existing comments in order to show/hide/rank them.
In an ideal comment system I believe that articles, comments and moderation events should come from three different, decentralized streams (like Atom) that the end user can subscribe to individually and that are joined at the end users client.
What he is asking for is the exact opposite of "the added legitimacy of the site itself". He's asking for a user interface to integrate content that does not come from the site itself.
That would be a lot cooler than another comment moderation system, of which there are already multiple open-source implementations. Could someone at least provide an argument of why Mozilla Talk is better than the existing solutions?
Mozilla Talk could be useful if it let me apply my own moderation schema (filters, blocklists, etc). It looks like another totally centralized moderation tool:
The only explanation of their approach is that they did "an enormous amount of research". This sounds about as convincing as someone claiming "Oh, I took a class in that."
Believe it or not, you can! Check our the documentation https://coralproject.github.io/talk/ where you can use plugins to hook any any part of the commenting process.
As a site admin, not a user. If you see our server side plugin api [1] you can see ways to extend the graph schema, hook into existing mutations/queries completed by the system to apply any set of rules or moderation policies you want. It would be a neat implementation if as a user, you were given the ability to create your own filters, which would certainly be possible if implemented via a plugin! But don't expect to do that on WaPo anytime soon.
Thanks for the explanation. I would be interested to help build a plugin that implements user-local moderation policies, if sites would actually install it. If that's not likely to happen, then a distributed commenting model seems more useful to me.
User-local moderation will be hamstrung by the lack of data. Sure, you can block certain users or reorder the results a little bit, but anything interesting would probably require the server shipping over huge amounts of data to a client which may never even do anything useful with it, which sites are unlikely to do.
Your best bet if you really want this feature is to implement it yourself server-side with just enough knobs to make it useful for your user-local case, and hope that other sites agree...
Individuals publishing psuedonymous moderation would provide the necessary data, provided privacy concerns can be addressed.
I.e. as I upvote your comment, I publish the info that "user XYZ upvoted this comment" which you can use in your own user-local moderation schema (at your discretion).
What we have to avoid is when Potential Employer looks for info on "John Q. Smith", they can identify which articles he upvoted.
Good site also to check out is our Guides [1]. We've collected research on user engagement into a format that should be easy for newsrooms to adopt to create better discussion.
The feature I want is, as a site user, to apply my own set of filtering and moderation criteria.
E.g. "I don't want to see comments posted by user XYZ, or containing regexp W. Any comments by user ABC, or upvoted by ABC, or containing regexp D, go to the top. I trust the moderation of site trollblocker.com"
I don't see these kinds of ideas represented in the user engagement research.
One of the features offered by Talk is the ability to ignore comments from a specific user [1]. It is designed just as you described it here. As mentioned in a previous comment, our server api's should be sufficient for you as a site administrator, to write a plugin that would allow users to do exactly what you described. The idea with Talk is that we hand control to the newsroom, so they can enable or create the plugins that they like.
Then don't comment on their site? I mean if you're looking for discussion online, there are thousands of places to go. But this is specifically about the comment sections they provide. It seems entirely reasonable that a room they provide should be subject to their rules, and one violating those rules should be shown the door.
They never said that Talk was aimed at moving that goal further along, however. They're trying to use it instead to allow better curation tools to make comments manageable.
It seems that their goal is to help sites move away from 3rd-party comment management services such as Facebook and Disqus. Based on this discussion, I think federated (not site-owned) comments are the way to go long-term. Maybe Talk can eventually be adapted to help with decentralized comment moderation.
The thing about federated comment feeds is that these news outlets will not be incentivized to embed them directly to their website, as they lose control of the content. This problem will damage the exposure that a federated system would receive.
Better than having news outlets embed them, is having browsers support mixing federated comments with the original content. How about it, Mozilla, Brave, and Chromium? Afraid to bite the hand that feeds you?
Okay, I'll give it to you that your idea would be really damn interesting. Still, there would have to be some semblance of moderation, and as to who that responsibility will be placed on is a hard question.
Agreed. I trust the guy who runs uBlock Origin over AdBlock Plus not for any great reason, but because I vaguely remember people on this site recommending it.
I imagine people could delegate moderation responsibility to people and organizations with a strong reputation. Let's say GNU, EFF, and Larry Lessig would all publish moderation data and metadata; as well as your "friends" on various social media sites, friends-of-friends, etc.
If I can produce something that will benefit 10 million people such that they would gladly pay $1 each for it, but I'd just as soon not do it unless I get paid that money, then it's in the interest of those 10 million people that I get $10M for my work.
I think it's more a matter of being lucky enough to enjoy doing something which is valuable to others.
Another way of looking at this is: rather than basing your enjoyment of life on pursuing a pleasant hobby (which you may or may not be able to get paid for), instead derive your
enjoyment from doing things that need to be done.
In our society that translates roughly to "earning a living by helping others". If this is your source of satisfaction, you don't need very much luck.
It's been pointed out that there's a world of difference between a private school and a for-profit school.
A for-profit school has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits. If it can make more profits by providing an inferior product at inflated prices, and convince consumers it buy it - then it basically has to do that, or they are defrauding their shareholders. Otherwise the shareholders should pull there money and invest it elsewhere.
Private schools, by contrast, have an obligation to remain solvent, but also a broader mission to educate people, promote learning, make the world a better place and so on.
The word "privatization" in this context implies BIA is pursuing the for-profit model. By contrast a charter school in the US, or religious school, may be either for-profit or private and not-for-profit.
> A for-profit school has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits.
No, it doesn't. A for-profit corporation has an obligation to serve it's shareholders interests faithfully, but that is not, generally, a narrow obligation to profit maximization.
Tell that to Carl Icahn. Management that puts public good over return on investment is likely to be replaced. The interest of shareholders are generally construed as maximizing return.
My guess is that maximizing ROI is also popular among investors not named Carl Icahn. I don't think I've ever worked for a company where the investors said "we want you to make money, and also accomplish socially relevant goal XXXX" where decided to sacrifice any part of "making money" for the sake of XXXX.
I've worked with plenty of investors who had goals which went beyond purely making money. There's even a legal movement to formally tie corporations to non-profit motivations (see benefit corporations).
Thinking about non-profit vs for-profit as a strict dichotomy is unhelpful. There are plenty of investors who shy away from particular for-profit investments and prefer other ones for entirely non-financial reasons.
No, "privatization" does not inherently imply a for-profit model.
You'll see plenty of people complaining about the "privatization" of public schools when they're replaced by (non-profit) charter schools.
Also, the strict dichotomy of non-profit vs. for-profit isn't always enlightening. Particularly in the education sector, you'll find there are investors who are not exclusively looking for the highest possible return.
In this specific case, I am 100% positive that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are not investing in BIA to maximize their profit. They both have access to far more lucrative investment options.
In this specific case, I am 100% positive that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are not investing in BIA to maximize their profit. They both have access to far more lucrative investment options.
I don't think this follows. You can't put all of your money into the most lucrative investment option. You have to diversify. For example people often invest in fine art, not because they're trying to make the world a better place by encouraging art, but as a hedge against other investments.
In this case there are assertions that BIA has a strategy of providing less individual attention to students in order to minimize costs, while taking money from the World Bank which could have gone to free public education otherwise. Sounds like Gates and Zuckerberg aren't in this to lose money.
My original comment wasn't about BIA specifically. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea if it's a good system or not.
It was about the dogmatic preaching of people that "privatization" is inherently evil.
In terms of Gates and Zuckerberg, I obviously can't offer you concrete proof. But I can ask you to seriously reconsider about the motives you ascribe to people. That investing in third world schools would be their best investment option (ignoring altruistic intentions) defies belief. Especially when they both have directly donated hundreds of millions of dollars to schools.
I am fairly confident that Gates and Zuckerberg are in this to lose money. They both have more money than they could ever do and have signed pledges to donate the majority of their fortunes before their death.
What seems more likely?
A. Billionaire philanthropists (who have donated millions to education already) invest in a small chain of private schools in order to fool millions of poor children and to enrich themselves.
B. Billionaire philanthropists are interested in improving education around the world and have donated millions of dollars to that cause, including to some for-profit ventures.
Certainly Gates & Zuckerberg are trying to bring about what they see as a positive vision for the world. Their track record is to provide a product (Windows, Facebook) that's "good enough", and creates a network effect that keeps more worthy competitors out of the market for a long time ("worse is better"). That's their idea of bringing good into the world.
It's a mistake to think that because a country is underdeveloped, there's little opportunity for return on investment. Actually that's where there's the most opportunity. The first investment doesn't have to pay off - just put a stake in the ground. Do you think China is also building infrastructure in Africa for philanthropic reasons?
> Do you think China is also building infrastructure in Africa for philanthropic reasons?
No, but China is not generally giving away billions of dollars without getting anything in return.
Gates at least has been consistently doing that.
Like I said, there's nothing I can say to convince you that they're not secretly evil capitalists hell-bent on making money from poor people around the world. All I can say is that it seems rather unlikely that they would go to so much trouble to hide their intent if that were the case. There are plenty of billionaires who exploit humanity without bothering to sign philanthropy pledges.
Large-scale philanthropy is not incompatible with a lust for power. I'm sure most people who try to effect wide-ranging change think of themselves as quite magnanimous - say, any third world dictator or 19th century robber baron. The effects of their "charity" may not be quite what the recipients were hoping for when they signed up.
Perhaps, but that's an entirely different argument from your original one (that Gates and Zuckerberg are trying to sell African schoolchildren a substandard product at inflated prices).
I suspect the G&Z agenda is to set up a sustainable model of investment in Africa by western countries. They don't want BIA to lose money because that would scare off investment partners who are more loss-averse. They believe in the long term, the most important thing is for people in democratic countries to engage with Africa and bring it about to their way of life. The collateral damage is that children may not be getting a great education; it may or may not be better than what they would have got otherwise, but it's breaking the old model of cyclic dependency on foreign aid.
