= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
Is there any way out of this dilemma? For example having a policy where moderator flips a coin for each offending article or comment, and head = delete, tails = keep.
:D
While I don't know about the legality, practically what this does is add noise to the moderation signal. Posts that remain are still more likely to be ones that the moderator approves of, but might not be.
This is actually very similar to the current system, with the randomness of coin flipping substituted for the semi-randomness of what the moderator happens to see.