Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>as the stakes in a discussion forum or media are not "survival".

I mean, as discussion forms commonly dox people, or brigade and convince members to go kill people IRL I really think maybe you're incorrect.

>Gmail, for example, also has spam filters, but we don't consider it moderation...

We whom? This has been debated on HN for as long as HN existed. Most would consider it moderation, but seemingly as a whole we have given up the battle as spammers are a plague of locust that will consume all.

>Again, neither here nor there.

Handwaves away physics, good way to accept technical reality of the situation here.




>I mean, as discussion forms commonly dox people, or brigade and convince members to go kill people IRL I really think maybe you're incorrect.

Yeah, but I covered that: "Now, if they verbally abuse someone though (e.g. threaten their life, dox them, and such), well, that could be moderated and members who do that could be banned. The rest of opinion, whether deemed controversial, unpopular, misinformation, or bullshit, can stay."

>We whom? This has been debated on HN for as long as HN existed. Most would consider it moderation

Has it? I'm here for almost as long as HN existed, and I don't remember this being debated. It might have been debated a couple of times in 15 or more years, but it's not like it's some common HN discussion.

I also doubt "most" would consider spam the same issue as the kind of moderation we're talkin about, or that even enough people think it's the same kind of thing as moderation of ideas and opinions and such. In fact, I'd go on to say that people who care for free speech still want spam filters - and don't view this as contradictory or care about the latter.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: