Hacker News Reader

Comment by lacker | Hacker News Reader

That seems like good analogy to content moderation. You have to ask "is the forbidden content actually on the site?"

For example you can have a rule like "no sharing pornographic content", but then are people allowed to share links to forbidden content? Links to sites that are 100% links to forbidden content? Links to sites that have one link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? Links to sites that have one extremely prominent link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? How prominent? Etc etc etc.

View on HN

That is a pretty clear distinction. A separate site has separate administration, can be blocked separately, etc. Otherwise you have additional rules: disallow direct links to forbidden content that causes it to render on the page, disallow linking to specific forbidden content, disallow links to on blacklisted domains, allow only whitelisted domain links.

What if it's a discussion about Terms of Service (ToS), and for some particular reason the Pornhub's ToS is relevant? The site itself is nsfw but if someone makes a claim that their tos says it's okay to kick puppies then you kind of have to link to it to support your claim. And how many ways around linking directly to the domain are there? hub for pron, bay of pirates, etc.

This is why Reddit is banned in Indonesia; because there's a bit of porn. Now laypeople just use Twitter instead...

"a bit"

Hehe, that's a fair take, but I must also mention that I've encountered far more porn unwittingly/unexpectedly on Twitter than I EVER, ever, ever have on reddit. Again speaking to the utility of moderation in general.

How do you encounter porn? It's not even allowed, other than age gated softcore shit.

I assure you there is far more than softcore and often on accounts where it isn’t obvious until you’ve viewed the offending tweet that there may be X-Rated audiovisual content.

I’m sure much of it violates the rules but my initial inclination is always to browse away, not report.

People on certain apps often have links to profiles that I basically can't read because every post is NSFW. I used to be able to at least peek with Nitter but now I just insta close most Twitter links.

I'm pretty sure a few explicit Google searches with "site:twitter.com" should pull up plenty.

And I'm not talking softcore, unless my descriptions are way off base.

Granted those aren't necessarily unwittingly, I can usually guess it's going to be like that, but I've definitely "fallen into a rabbit hole" so to speak at other times.

On reddit, if you're not subbed to porn subreddits, you normally wouldn't see it. Though the homepage was still jacked up enough a few days ago that I was seeing softcore stuff on page 1 or 2 with the country set to Mexico.

Twitter moderation has cratered .. reports to the contrary otherwise.

You'll see a fair degree of NSFW porn if you firehose capture all images, on the "hate speech" front (repeatedly calling disabled, minority, indigenous, queer people names, cyber stalking, etc.) it's reached the point where (for instance) Australia has warned Twitter it will start issuing daily fines of up to $7K AUD [1]

The increased porn & veering into CSAM territory is tailwinding that trend.

[1] https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/esafety-d...

That would be news to many users of twitter. Even the gating is... inconsistent.

Because Twitter has no porn?

It’s because twitter HAS porn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com