I made a robot moderator. It models trust flow through a network that's made of voting patterns, and detects people and posts/comments that are accumulating a large amount of "negative trust," so to speak.

In its current form, it is supposed to run autonomously. In practice, I have to step in and fix some of its boo-boos when it makes them, which happens sometimes but not very often.

I think it's working well enough at this point that I'd like to experiment with a mode where it can form an assistant to an existing moderation team, instead of taking its own actions. I'm thinking about making it auto-report suspect comments, instead of autonomously deleting them. There are other modes that might be useful, but that might be a good place to start out. Is anyone interested in trying the experiment in one of your communities? I'm pretty confident that at this point it can ease moderation load without causing many problems.

!santabot@slrpnk.net

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] auk@slrpnk.net 27 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

So it would delete people’s posts if they get downvoted a lot

No.

or if the poster tends to upvote heavily downvoted posts?

No.

You’ve automated the suppression of dissenting voices.

Am not.

It's a perfectly fair concern. I'm trying to be careful to make sure I'm not doing that. There's quite a lot of explanation in the FAQ, and some conversations you can look back over with people who were concerned, because they've had experience with exactly that happening to them.

At one point I tried to illustrate with data just how big a jerk you have to be before it starts banning you. If you're interested, I can start doing that again. Being a dissenting voice on its own is nowhere near enough to anger the bot. You can look over !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net and see quite a few dissenting voices. I've also offered to delve, for any user who feels that this has happened to them, into the breakdown of why they're being ranked down, which almost always is because they're being a jerk about their "dissenting" opinion, and not the opinion itself.

Also, I think it's hilarious that someone coming from lemmy.ml is accusing me of trying to suppress dissenting voices. Lemmy.ml has been suppressing dissenting voices since its inception. The degree to which I'm bending over backwards not to suppress dissenting voices is something I think you should absorb and carry over to the lemmy.ml moderators as a good replacement for their current banhammer circus.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (17 children)

At one point I tried to illustrate with data just how big a jerk you have to be before it starts banning you. If you’re interested, I can start doing that again.

Would you?

My understanding is that downvotes reflect whether or not someone agrees with a post or comment much more than whether the user is making a constructive comment or not so they can only be used to infer how agreeable the comment is.

I’ve also offered to delve, for any user who feels that this has happened to them, into the breakdown of why they’re being ranked down, which almost always is because they’re being a jerk about their “dissenting” opinion, and not the opinion itself.

Use me as an example, I regularly get dozens of downvotes for such hot takes as "facilitating genocide hurts the dems chances of getting elected, we need them to stop that if we want them to win.".

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com -2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Hell. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I bet I get banned for hot takes like "I should be able to defend myself legally" and "Illegal immigrants should be deported"

[–] auk@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You got banned for hot takes like, "A lot more pedophiles endorsing Harris though. It would cancel out if they were about the same, but they aren't."

I'm curious to know what you said under the posts about the Harris campaign HQ getting shot with bullets, or the disinformation project which produced the video of illegal immigrants saying they're registered to vote, but not curious enough to look into it any further.

Sounds like the bot knows its job. The paradox of tolerance is tempting, but it's resisting.

[+] Kaboom@reddthat.com -8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

When was Harris shot at? Was that after Trump was shot at? Was it a copycat?

[–] auk@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Tell you what. I can respond to this in two different ways. I really don't agree with silencing people who have a different point of view than I do. On other platforms, I've spent a ton of time arguing with conservatives. So much time. It's not unfamiliar to me. I don't think people need to limit their interactions to only the people who are "right," if that makes sense. It's okay for someone to be saying something that I think is wrong, as long as they're open to a conversation about it. I can say where I think some of your sources have a long history of deliberately misleading people, as a way of making the case that they are misleading you, too. I don't view you as the enemy, necessarily, but I do think you're mistaken.

If I'm going to have that conversation with me, then you don't have to agree with me or be nice to me, but I do need you to be willing to hear me out. In exchange, I'll promise to hear you out, too, and take seriously what you're saying, enough to disagree with it honestly and respectfully when I disagree with it. Is that something you're interested in? Because we have about as different a set of viewpoints as you could imagine, but I'm still fine talking with you, and having a real exchange of views.

If you don't want to do that, and just want to emit your viewpoint and belittle other viewpoints until people remove you from the community, then I can respond to you accordingly. But I would prefer to do the first thing. I don't think this is the forum for it, but we can surely find one, and I can spend a while talking with you about the viewpoints you seem to think are getting you censored.

Edit: Grammar

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

They didn't say that. Read again.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)