You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

PhilGoetz comments on [meta] Policy for dealing with users suspected/guilty of mass-downvote harassment? - Less Wrong Discussion

28 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 06 June 2014 05:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (239)

Comments (239)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 June 2014 07:13:19PM *  0 points [-]

The failures of old mailing lists and Usenet were why social mediums universally abandoned killfiles and similar filtering mechanisms: the balance of costs was all wrong - a large number of people had to take affirmative action to ignore the small number of bad apples.

No, I don't think that's true. You're arguing that internet user interfaces become better at hosting debates over time. If I believed that, I'd also believe that the user interfaces for holding rational discussion have gradually improved, from Usenet, to bulletin boards, to Facebook and Wordpress, to Twitter and Tumblr.

Comment author: gwern 07 June 2014 09:32:59PM *  9 points [-]

You're arguing that internet user interfaces become better at hosting debates over time.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the interfaces got better at certain features of UX, like dealing with spam and trolls. Usenet could be intrinsically better at debate (in the hypothetical universe where it had a restricted userbase and wasn't dying of spam and other issues).

eg. imagine a forum where all comments had to be accompanied by an argument map but the forum didn't have any way of banning/deleting accounts. I have little doubt that the debates would be of higher quality, since argument maps have been shown repeatedly to help, but would anyone use that forum for very long? I have much doubt.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit