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

  • Kaboom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    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”

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Maybe, but conservatism is considered much more acceptable among Americans than anything left of liberalism. Particularly now when the dems are trying to reach out to conservatives with policies such as closing the border, “tough on crime” rhetoric, unlimited support for Israel, etc. You can check by whether you’ve been banned from PleasentPolitics

      legally” and “Illegal

      Adding “this should be done according to the law” doesn’t divorce an action from its morality.

      Rounding up millions of immigrants, some whom have been here for decades, and nearly all of whom are here because they’re fleeing the effects of the US constantly couping their governments and training/funding terrorists is an immoral action, whether they’re legal or illegal.

    • auk@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

        • auk@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          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

          • Kaboom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            17 days ago

            Tbh, I don’t really care to engage in arguments anymore. It never goes anywhere. It’s pretty dumb.

            • auk@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 days ago

              It seems like you were perfectly happy to engage in arguments, when it was you outputting the argument. At me. When asked about engaging in a rational discussion, you bailed, with contempt at the concept.

              Annnnd that’s why you are banned. Like I say, the bot is working.