Dealing With Venom on the Web 326
theodp writes "In a world where nastiness online can erupt and go global overnight, BusinessWeek finds Corporate America woefully unprepared and offers suggestions for how to cope, including shelling out $10,000 to companies like ReputationDefender.com to promote the info you want and suppress the news you don't. And in what must be a sign of the Apocalypse, BW holds Slashdot's moderation system up as a model for maintaining civility in message boards."
BW holds Slashdot's moderation system up (Score:1, Insightful)
Queue the modding up of blatant trolling and such silliness.
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
If
Maintaining Civility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Responsibility is iffy online (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you call shenanigans with the editors? Everyone in your thread goes to -1 and you never get to mod again.
Case in point: your post. You first said how nice the system is, then made legitimate criticism over a minor issue, and even a suggestion for improvement. I see now that you are modded as a troll. You've got to drink more of that kool-aid and be a more of a mouth-breathing fan-boy if you want your comment to be seen.
P.S. Linux rulez, Windoze drulez!
Yep, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line, to me, is that when dealing with humans who by nature are imperfect, no system can possibly be perfect.
Metamoderation helps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I try to maintain the same level of civility on the interweb tubes as I do in RL, and AC posts allow me to express opinions that, while I would be willing to have a civil discussion with most people on, may not acceptable to many of the businesses for which I may want to work.
snake oil (Score:4, Insightful)
No tell me exactly how they are going to remove my old website from archive.org, my embarrassing posts in news groups from google groups, or porn pics done in my youth shared by millions on p2p networks ?
Short of bombing every server on the planet you cannot do anything. Once things are out, there are out, you cannot take them back.
Err moderation system? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anytime someone says something useful and productive on Digg, it gets buried.
That is unless it's about tits, condoms or illegal drugs, all of which seem to be priority #1 on Digg.
Commenting on Digg is a total waste of time. Unless you're a teenager.
Just goes to show the level of maturity of the average, typical Digg member.
Digg moderation is horrifically worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of nesting makes it harder to filter out irrelevant discussion subtrees; in short, with Digg, you display all messages or you miss out. Slashdot's moderation may be far from perfect, but it's outstanding compared to the adolescent pack mentality on Digg.
Re:Civility or groupthink? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I participate in a real-world discussion, whether in a social or academic context, and just start behaving disrespectfully (or present an extreme view and don't make a good case for it, or whatever), there are repercussions, which can range from mild social disapproval to being dragged outside and getting my ass kicked.
Moderation systems, in my opinion, do the same thing online, where otherwise anonymity removes those repercussions. I don't see it as a bad thing. I just wish there were more "groups" to choose from with good moderation systems.
Re:Metamoderation helps (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish to applaud the posters who have participated in a lively argument, and managed to find common ground, even if it is agreeing to disagree.
Re:Maintaining Civility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly hope posters (including you) will show the courage of their convictions somewhere, but it's not fair to assume cowardice, any more than it would be to say anyone who won't stand on a soapbox in a public park before a crowd obviously filled with drunken hecklers, just to make his opinions known is a coward. Sometimes you just think another venue may be more productive, or want to debate on the peaks instead of in the valleys.
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more I think of it, the more I think that's a bonus. A huge problem on digg is that people will go through and mod up or down anything that they either agree with or disagree with, without regard to the actual content of the post. At least when mod points are scarce, users generally only use them on posts that are actually deserving.
As has already been said, there's a great difference in the userbases of each site. I'd be willing to bet that the average Slashdot user is better educated, has more experience (in industry, in life, ...), and is older. Digg is just in it's infancy compared to Slashdot; I think there could be a lot of improvement when they fix their commenting system and their user base ages a bit.
As a community, Slashdot is pretty critical of itself--but it really is one of the best online communities out there. If you don't believe me, you spend way too much time here.
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Erm... if by 'blatant trolls' you mean the GNAA posts, then yes, I agree. However, I've seen quite a few cases of moderation being based on public opinion, as opposed to a more objective line of thought. Unfortunately, I think this has caused the community to develop a style about how they post here that goes against the initial wishes of this system. For example: Take ANY cell phone story and you'll find several +5 comments about how people angrily wish they could get a phone that's just a phone. Umm.. okay. So... that encourages people to make the same post in every story. Microsoft product in a car story? A mad rush to be the first to make a 'crash' joke. Sony? Hehe, you know what I mean.
I do like the moderation system, I just wish there was a better sense of objectivity. Fortunately, though, my complaints about this have gone down a LOT in the last 5 years. I'm just not sure if it's because M2 is actually working (albeit slowly) or if it's because public opinion has shifted in my favor.
Re:What can "ReputationDefender" really do? (Score:2, Insightful)
You pay the $29.95 to Reputation Defender even if they fail to remove the item. Legal avenues "may" incur a further fee. I expect that their business model is to harvest lots of monthly payments from paranoid people and supplement them with overpriced one-off fees for intimidating web site owners.
We do OK (Score:2, Insightful)
Now and then, a nasty word or a Troll sneak in, but the Nazgul consume them quickly.
Groklaw does ok too. (Trolls there glow orange when they pass the door)
Those other sites though.....
Kathy Sierra (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me?
Also, the comments about holding /. as a template for moderation... more boring nonsense. Stop feeding the troll.
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Digg I _used_to_ read for the headlines & links.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the AC's point is perfectly valid. I know in the time I've been visiting /. I've posted sufficient clues for anyone to deduce precisely who I am -- not that I particularly mind, as I didn't choose my nick for anonymity.
And yes, there's a danger in that: the danger of temper tantrums, mostly. If you've never lost your temper online, you're a better person than I am. (I basically just figure as long as I don't say things that are too much more outrageous than what a lot of colleagues say on professional-oriented mailing lists every day, I should be OK. :-)
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll say this: here, I'm not likely to mod up a post that I strongly disagree with (unless it's very insightful in a way I've never heard before, factually and logically sound). I guess an alternative viewpoint must meet a stronger standard than one that just seems obvious to me. Maybe thats not completely fair.
I'd be interested in you pointed out your posts that have been modded troll while being "well informed, concise, accurate and written in a professional manner." Generally the posts I see modded as troll are disrespectful and incomplete. Tone matters. If you really think there's some vast conspiracy to undermine your positions, well . . . a tin foil hat might not be thick enough.
Slashdot's moderation has instructions--bring posts deserving attention up, and get the completely unproductive stuff out of the way. Digg doesn't have this. There are no guidelines at all. What criteria should I use? If I'm participating in a thread, should I mod the people up that have agreed with me? Mod down the ones that don't? Mod up the buried comments that are well stated but not the popular opinion? If a comment is modded +20, what does that mean? It's a popularity contest. In terms of groupthink, digg's system will always be worse when everyone's opinion matters all the time.
Site EULA may be hazardous. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ReputationDefender user agreement [reputationdefender.com] looks dangerous.
They become your legal agent. But not your attorney. "You authorize us to be your privacy advocates. In this role, we might contact third parties, including creators of unwelcome content, hosts of unwelcome content, and other parties who might have control or authority over such content. You authorize us to take such action on your behalf, and to identify ourselves as acting on your behalf. You recognize that such contact may have unpredictable side-effects, including but not limited to negative responses from others. We are not your lawyer and cannot dispense legal advice, nor does this Agreement or the Services create any attorney-client relationship or legal representation."
Then they try to escape any liability: "You agree that you will hold harmless ReputationDefender, Inc., and its officers, directors, and employees, from all claims arising out of or related to your access or use of, or your inability to access or use, ReputationDefender's services, this Web site, or the information contained in this Web site or other web sites to which it is linked."
As your authorized agent, if they do something they shouldn't, you are liable. That's what "agent" means, legally. [wikipedia.org] ReputationDefender doesn't take responsibility for its own actions. That's a dangerous position to be in contractually.
Usually the people you might let be your agent, in the legal sense, are regulated in some way. Realtors, stockbrokers, accountants, private detectives, employment agents, and lawyers may act as your agent. But those are all regulated businesses, for good reasons. Such people take on liability and usually carry insurance coverage. There are established guidelines for what people in those fields can and can't do. That's not the case here. ReputationDefender, which is unregulated, wants you to take the responsibility for their actions, while being rather vague about what those actions might be. This is an open-ended risk.
It would be a very good idea to consult a lawyer before signing up with ReputationDefender.
Thanx for reply, but I'm unimpressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, from your FAQ, legal stuff is rarely done, and costs more. So that leave letters and SEO. Letters are hardly some great proprietary technology. And SEO does not remove anything.
I suppose there could be some use for the service, but I'm not impressed. This article seems like a slashvertisement anyway.
Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)
How is any of this new? It's been going on for decades. Doesn't anyone remember "A Rape in Cyberspace"?
The idea that companies should ever control what the web says about them is so abhorrent I can hardly put it into words.
NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of good comments go unnoticed because they get a 0 score (for being ACs), while an entire ocean of useless babble get automatically promoted to +1 (registered users) or +2 (karma loaded jerks).
And how does a jerk get +2? Just think about how many people voted for some idiot... as one writer once said in my country: "All majorities are dumb."
Heck, I've seen a lot of +5, Insightful which are (IMO, granted) totally clueless. It really hurts to read them... automatic scores do lower the content-to-noise ratio.
Of course, it's important to avoid useless racist posts; but a lot of valuable content comes from comments -- and in those, a lot of good-willing ACs contribute with things they wouldn't otherwise say... yes, I know, there is no real anonymity on the Internet, but what is stopping ill-intentioned guys from faking names? (Good people do not want to lie, they'd rather go AC).
Some stories get 300 +1-rated posts and another 80 0-rated ones: what would go wrong in displaying these extra 80?
Say what you want. On Digg, you can get the "upcoming stories": non-voted, not-yet-manipulated. On
Digg is now what
As of the last year, I've been even refraining from posting. I may well one day surrender and register, but I'm sure to feel defeated if I do so... and, besides, will
Re:Metamoderation helps (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually receive mod points the same day when I bother to spend time looking at deeply nested threads. This seems consistent with the idea that moderators should try to mod well-formulated yet obscure posts up, rather than to mod high-profile posts down. I can't otherwise find a correlation of meta-moderation and the likelihood I get mod points.
I'm sorry to say I also tend to let my mod points expire. The task of finding gem in a haystack takes too much time for me, and I think other moderators do a good job. The system always tell you to browse at -1 to watch out for abuses---I think they mean moderator abuses, since there is no point to mod down -1 posts. In practice, abuses only happen in highly controversial subjects, which rarely appear.
For those who want to comment on my sig, I put them there some time ago when I was in the middle of a heated controversial debate. However, I found the sig to be ineffective. It is like putting a bumper sticker saying you're a new driver and ask people to be nice. I'm keep it as a public service announcement to remind people they're participating in censorship whenever they decide to mod down a post.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you stand to gain? You can realistically have a conversation if you accept e-mail notifications. You gain the ability to moderate down those nonsense +5's, metamoderate the ones that put them there in the first place. Save your prefs, etc.
The system only has value by having people registered. By refusing to you're merely complaining about things you're being too lazy to help fix.
There's an advantage to attaching a name to your words, but you always have the ability to take the penalty and detach that name to say something that either needs to be said, or probably shouldn't be said but you feel like it anyway.
Stop seeing registering as surrender, stop celebrating your sloth (or maybe paranoia, but I have no idea what your reasons are. I can't even understand them). Really, it's just another column in a database that can't realistically even be linked to you. You seem to care by what you say, so why don't you care enough to participate that much? Stage fright?
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of comments should come from registered users, for one main reason - it allows conversation. If you're being commented on by two AC's, you've no way of knowing who said what. The +1 is there both as an incentive to register, and to help hide the huge flow of crap that comes from the majority of ACs. Another advantage to registering is you can choose to read at 0 if you like, or +4 or -1, and automatically upmod and downmod certain people. ACs ARE ignored mostly, because if you don't have the balls to put a name to your post, then there's a fair chance it's not worth my time to read it. Those few that are worth it should be being upmodded. As far as those comments that need real anonymity, they can register a fake one-off account to post it. After all, slashdot's got your IP whether you're an AC or a one-off user. Note, registered users don't get stories earlier, only those who've also paid a subscription fee.
As for jerks getting +2 automatically; well, that's because they have a history of being upmodded. The metamoderation system is supposed to prevent that, so only people with a history of good posts get there. Yes, it's vulnerable to a 'hivemind' of moderation, where certain types of comments always get modded up, and others down - an accusation often levelled in microsoft threads - and there probably is a bit of truth in that, but more at a general level, reflecting the generally liberal and geeky nature of the audience.
The biggest weakness of the moderation system is when comments sound good, but are actually utter crap - and get modded up insightful. Then you get several comments afterwards saying 'that's utter crap, how did this get insightful'. On the plus side, this does mean that people have an incentive to post the correct information, so the rest of us can see a common fallacy, and the debunking of it. Would be better off if neither had been upmodded, and just left at the level as the GNAA posters? I won't trot out that penny-arcade cartoon about internet+anonymity, you've probably seen it a thousand times.
Moderation, and registration aren't perfect. They're still a damn sight better than not having either, given the huge size of slashdot. I come to slashdot for the comments, the news I can get elsewhere.
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's lots of bad things that can be (and have been) said about Slashdot, but the comment system is one of the things that actually seems to work well. Shit happens on occasion, with troll comments getting modded up or legitimate (if controversial) ones getting modded down, but it's my impression that this is relatively rare and that metamoderation is taking care of it; and of course, nobody and nothing is perfect, anyway, so the fact that there are *some* errors *occasionally* doesn't mean that Slashdot's comment system isn't working.
And as others have remarked already, a good amount of the comments on Slashdot really *are* insightful, interesting, informative or funny, too. I, too, read Slashdot mostly just for the comments - if those didn't exist, I really wouldn't care much about the site, or at least not more than I care about any other news aggregation site.
Re:Slashdot moderation maintains civility? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the funniest thing I've seen in a week. Although for certain values of "ways of the world", I think you are right. Certainly compared to Digg. I've tried to add something constructive to the Digg comments, but mostly I feel like it's a waste of time. Plus, given the fact that there's no easy way to track your comments to see what others say, or to be able to respond (more than one level) Digg comments can never achieve the quality of "conversation" that appears on
I look at Digg to find interesting articles (but mostly neat photos or links to still more versions of Tower Defense, and other fluff). The comments may be worth glancing at, but are secondary. At