Is AI Moderation the Solution to Online 'Gatekeeping' | Hacker News Reader

Is AI Moderation the Solution to Online 'Gatekeeping'

2 pointsabss8 comments

How are you experiencing the effects of 'professionalization' in terms of contributions and moderation in the current internet landscape? My recent experiences on Reddit and Wikipedia suggest that it's increasingly difficult for new users to effectively contribute without significant karma accumulation or forming relationships with existing moderators. This seems to be a detrimental trend, as it reflects not necessarily the quality of content, but rather a system of social 'gatekeeping'. Do you think the implementation of AI moderators on these platforms would be beneficial in reducing human biases and improving the quality of discussions, by reformulating ideas and correcting deviations from the rules?

View on HN

We are entering an era where AI can potentially enhance moderation. How can we ensure it aids rather than hinders? Imagine AI not as a lazy censor, but as a tool capable of discerning the value of diverse contributions. Unlike a Wikipedia editor who might be overwhelmed by thousands of articles across numerous domains, AI could objectively evaluate scientific results in peer-reviewed journals. It could also connect current discussions with past contributions and provide gentle, rule-based corrections. Could this be the future of fair and efficient online moderation?

Capturing a billion or even trillion-dollar value proposition awaits entrepreneurs who seize the opportunity to implement AI moderators in platforms like Wikipedia, search engines, and social networks. This disruptive potential beckons ambitious innovators to enter the market, positioning themselves to challenge and reshape the industry while creating substantial economic value.

It is probably a solution as long as is doesn't moderate in a way to attempt forcing a narrow point of view as determined by the creators. We already have enough narrowly focused echo chambers out there.

I expect AI-powered moderation will get overrun by AI-powered sock puppetry.

What about implementing a trust-based system, where content aligns with different brands, schools of thought, and value systems? It can revolutionize how we view information. This approach could negate the need for censorship, allowing users to filter content based on their trust in specific brands or ideologies. It's a way to personalize content while maintaining a broad spectrum of views and reducing the impact of bias, spam or of stupid contributions.

You will need to implement some sort of censorship system, even if only to remove the outright illegal stuff.

Also there’s stuff like doxxing where there’s no point filtering it out with an optional filter — either your site filters it out centrally, or there’s no point.

Having said that — I’m fully on board with being able to opt in to more aggressive anti spam and anti rudeness settings, although I’d question why they weren’t enabled by default.

AI moderation merely provides the tools for crystallizing adversarial structures of social friction into impenetrable and inscrutable algorithmic tyranny

I see what you mean and I see the risk, but I think we could imagine something beyond this, like having your personal AI judge various contributions and not one from the platforms...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com