1464
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
1464 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
58302 readers
4441 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly to avoid the immense botspam coming for small orgs, you need either a literal army of volunteers, or some kind of "realID" type check to verify they're human, and I hate that concept immensely as well.
Giant if, but if you could do a one way cryptographic check against an ID to verify its legitimate, without sending anything off the server elsewhere, then a forum could bind your current username to a state issued ID, at least until it's reissued. And then you could at least reasonably think these users are human.
But who wants to give that info to a stranger online. Even if the hash is unique to the site based on their own seed, the average person doesn't understand that, and it feels like handing over your actual privacy.
Setting aside that PCs don't have NFC readers as a standard feature as well.
Everything I think would be effectivd boils down though to needing to know that something exists in meatspace on the other end, and being able to use that to manage your bans. At least 10bux is just money, and not your ID.
This is the thing, the balance of anonymity and preventing people using that anonymity to be a tit.
In my opinion, one of the answers is keeping the signal-to-noise high: Make sure that there are enough sensible people in a community that if someone starts acting up, they're alone. And then they can either correct their course, or get banned, ideally before the next moron shows up.
And part of the way of achieving that is raising the barrier to sign-up, if only a little, and rate limiting.
Revisiting this many weeks later: what do you think of the idea of super users who can be delegated an ability to silence/quarantine other posters?
Admin
Moderators
Superuser
User
Maybe if they only had the ability to flag a user and put them in "time out, and it couldn't stack or be consecutive from one superuser, etc?
I dunno. It might be a good way to help police the content without making people volunteer to be full on mods. And it can be treated as a semi privileged role, that expires are X months and only X number ofnactive users in good standing can have at once?
A little complex to implement, but it might at least let mods crowdsource the task of stemming the worst of things.