A fun idea that I'm certain no one has considered with any level of seriousness: don't moderate anything.
Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate and make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc). The "pay to play" idea will eliminate an insane amount of the junk, too. Any free network is inherently going to have problems of chaos. Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.
As for advertisers (why any moderation is necessary in the first place beyond totalitarian thought control): have different tiers of quality. If you want a higher quality audience, pay more. If you're more concerned about broad reach (even if that means getting junk users), pay less. Beyond that, advertisers/brands should set their expectations closer to reality: randomly appearing alongside some tasteless stuff on Twitter does not mean you're vouching for those ideas.
> Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate
This is effectively impossible because of the bullshit asymmetry principle[1]. It's easier to create content that needs moderation than it is to moderate it. In general, there is a fundamental asymmetry to life that it takes less effort to destroy than it does to create, less work to harm than heal. With a slightly sharpened piece of metal and about a newton of force, you can end a life. No amount of effort can resurrect it.
It simply doesn't scale to let bad actors cause all the harm they want and rely on good actors to clean up their messes after the fact. The harm must be prevented before it does damage.
> make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc).
The simplest approach would be no API at all, but that won't stop scammers and bad actors. It's effectively impossible to prohibit screen scrapers.
> Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.
This is, I think, the best idea. If having an identity and sharing content costs actual money, you can at least make spamming not be cost effective. But that still doesn't eliminate human bad actors griefing others. Some are happy to pay to cause mayhem.
There is no simple technical solution here. Fundamentally, the value proposition of a community is the other good people you get to connect to. But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. For a community to thrive, you've got to encourage the good behaviors and police the bad ones. That takes work and human judgement.
> But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people.
This is a fundamental reality of life that cannot be avoided. There is no magical solution (technical or otherwise) to prevent this. At best, you can put in some basic safeguards (like what you/I have stated above) but ultimately people need to learn to accept that you can't make everything 100% safe.
Also, things like muting/blocking work but the ugly truth is that people love the negative excitement of fighting online (it's an outlet for life's pressure/disappointments). Accepting that reality would do a lot of people a lot of good. A staggering amount of the negativity one encounters on social media is self-inflicted by either provoking or engaging with being provoked.
1. There are plenty of places online that "don't moderate anything". In fact, nearly all of the social networks started off that way.
The end result is … well, 4Chan.
2. "Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work. User's don't want to have constantly police their feeds and block people, topics, sites, etc. It's also work that never ends. Bad actors jump from one identity to the next. There are no "static" identifiers that are reliable enough for a user to trust.
3. Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with. And they're also not interested in spending time white-listing specific accounts they "know" are good.
And? Your opinion of whether that's bad is subjective, yet the people there are happy with the result (presumably, as they keep using/visiting it).
> Self-moderation" doesn't work, because it's work.
So in other words: "I'm too lazy to curate a non-threatening experience for myself which is my responsibility because the offense being taken is my own." Whether or not you're willing to filter things out that upset you is a personal problem, not a platform problem.
> Advertisers aren't going to just "accept" that their money is supporting content they don't want to be associated with.
It's not. Twitter isn't creating the content nor are they financing the content (e.g. like a Netflix type model). It's user-generated which is completely random and subject to chaos. If they can't handle that, they shouldn't advertise there (hence why a pay-to-play option is best as it prevents a revenue collapse for Twitter). E.g., if I I'm selling crucifixes, I'm not going to advertise on slutmania.com
---
Ultimately, people need to quit acting like everything they come into contact with needs to be respectful of every possible issue or disagreement they have with it. It's irrational, entitled, and childish.
1. I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists.
2. It's a platform problem. If you make users do work they don't want to do in order to make the platform pleasant to use, they won't do the work, the platform will not be pleasant to use, and they'll use a different platform that doesn't make them do that work.
3. "If they can't handle it, they shouldn't advertise there." Correct! They won't advertise there. That's the point.
There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms, and those platforms are niche, with small audiences, filled with low-tier/scam ads and are generally not profitable.
> I didn't imply whether it was good or bad, just that the product you're describing already exists.
A product exists with those properties, but not something like Twitter.
> It's a platform problem.
It's not. I don't use stuff like 4chan because it's not of interest to me but it is of interest to others. There's zero requirement for Twitter to be a universally acceptable platform (that delusion is why there continues to be issues around moderation), just like 4chan needn't cater to everyone.
> There are already unmoderated, "you do the work, not us", "advertisers have to know what they're getting into" platforms
Right. And there's no requirement for Twitter to offer advertising. That's why I think it'd be wise for them to adopt a pay-to-play model instead of chasing that rabbit.
You seem to be demanding that Twitter adopt policies and features despite the fact the market has shown those policies and features will shrink their user base and their profit.
Demanding? No. I think it's a smart business decision and removes a ton of overhead and stress.
And no, App.net was Dalton Caldwell's halfhearted attempt (the UI was okay at best) after Twitter already had the network effect in motion (six years after Twitter launched).
There are no successful "pay for access" social media networks, and the argument that Twitter's dominance some how held App.net back ignores all the other social networks that succeeded despite being founded after Twitter.
Yes. The reason a social network works is because of its brand, adoption, and network effects—not features (App.net sounds like a Boomer social network).
Twitter is so well-established that introducing a premium paid version would be de-facto successful—if done properly, not like Twitter Blue—for producing revenue. Especially because so many people rely on it to communicate.
A rough example:
Twitter Basic = Free. Follow up to 50 people. Bookmark up to 100 tweets. 140 character limit. Ad supported.
Twitter Pro = $5/month. Follow up to 500 people. Unlimited bookmarking. 280 character limit. Up to 10 minute videos. Customized ads.
Twitter Business = $10/month. Follow up to 2500 people + all of the above.
Twitter Elite = $15/month. Elite Checkmark, unlimited follows, all of the above, + 420 character limit and up to 30 minute videos.
---
It can certainly be done, but it requires creativity and speed. Both of which waved bye bye to Silicon Valley about 10 years ago so it will likely be a mediocre version of the above at best.
Social networks work because people enjoy using them. As people tell their friends about the network, they use it, and network effects allow it to grow. As it grows, its brand is established.
Twitter is a distant fourth or fifth place network because, as it is, most people do not enjoy using it. Its Brand is wildly seen as synonymous with toxic parts of our culture.
And your plan is to make it worse and then charge people to use it.
It really depends on how you use it. Just based on your attitude it's clear you're engaging with bad stuff and then blaming that on the greater experience of the app/network as a whole. If you follow a bunch of politics stuff (which is inherently inflammatory) or seek out arguments with people you know you disagree with, yeah, you're not going to have a good time.
You can only follow bible quotes and motivation accounts and not once encounter any "toxic" behavior. It's 100% up to the user. Ignoring that is just ignoring reality (which like I said earlier in the thread, most people need to take responsibility for, but won't).
Usenet and IRC used to be self-moderated. The mods in each group or channel would moderate their own userbase, ban people who were causing problems, step in if things were getting too heated. At a broader level net admins dealt with the spam problem system wide, coordinating in groups in the news.admin hierarchy or similar channels in IRC.
This worked fine for many years, but then the internet got big. Those volunteer moderators and administrators could no longer keep up with the flood of content. Usenet died (yes, it's still around, but it's dead as any kind of discussion forum) and IRC is a shell of its former self.
Right, which is solved by the pay to play limits. This would essentially cut the problem off immediately and it would be of benefit to everyone. If it actually cost people to "do bad stuff" (post spam, vitriol, etc), they're far less-likely to do it as the incentives drop off.
The dragon folks seem to be chasing is that Twitter should be free but perfect (which is a have your cake and eat it too problem). That will never happen and it only invites more unnecessary strife between sociopolitical and socioeconomic factions as they battle for narrative control.
Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate and make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc). The "pay to play" idea will eliminate an insane amount of the junk, too. Any free network is inherently going to have problems of chaos. Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.
As for advertisers (why any moderation is necessary in the first place beyond totalitarian thought control): have different tiers of quality. If you want a higher quality audience, pay more. If you're more concerned about broad reach (even if that means getting junk users), pay less. Beyond that, advertisers/brands should set their expectations closer to reality: randomly appearing alongside some tasteless stuff on Twitter does not mean you're vouching for those ideas.