I used to handle comment moderation for a metro newspaper, and I was floored by the amount of time and effort people put into posting racist diatribes. We had some who must've been script kiddies, because they started automating their comments, just like spammers. But they were selling hate, rather than ED pills.
I had proposed charging a nominal amount for comment account creation, but I got a hard no. Too bad. It certainly would have thwarted the worst offenders, who were creating dozens of accounts a day.
> I had proposed charging a nominal amount for comment account creation, but I got a hard no. Too bad. It certainly would have thwarted the worst offenders, who were creating dozens of accounts a day.
That's an excellent idea, too bad management said no. a friend of mine works on an outlet where only paid subscribers can comment. Not only it reduces spam by 100% but it actually allows for a more thoughtful and meaningful discussion.
There were multiple reasons why it was not considered an acceptable option, but one of it had to do with the fact that if we limited comments only to paid subscribers, then what happens when a paid subscriber breaks the rules and gets banned?
Is it an all-time ban? Or just a temporary ban, until their subscription renews? What if they deserve an all-time ban? Will that lead to them cancelling their subscription altogether? I think management was (overly) concerned about tying a person's conduct in the comments to their subscription, for fear of lost revenue.
That's where making commenting a perk (among others) of being a __paying subscriber__ would be a change in business model that might be beneficial. Though that alone wouldn't get me to pay. Weight towards focus of research I find valuable might.
Back in the day the revenue from charging someone to comment paled in comparison to the reason everyone added comment sections: user generated content attracted traffic from search engines.
In the early 2000s I used to run a small travel related website and added commenting. Ads just on comment deep link pages paid the rent on my apartment.
Even if it doesn't make the comments better, it's at least the paper's paying audience, so at the very least it's "authentic." If their subscriber base is all racists, well, I guess that's enlightening.
Just the requirement that one have valid payment mechanism deanonymizes most people, at least to the newspaper. That should tamper most of the worst behavior. The holdout jerks can then be banned in a way that sticks.
Slight tangent. There was a program on Dutch TV yesterday (we have elections now) and it appeared that just about 500 twitter accounts are doing much to influence public opinion. There were some script kiddy bots (one posting every 14 seconds from a wide range of pre-cooked responses), but a significant amount of the influencing came from pensionados. People around 75 years old (mostly male) having nothing else to do, and not anonymous but really very proud of their work.
If trolls, or any one user, can make dozens of accounts per day, that's on you. You can very easily stop account creation from VPN and TOR IPs, and of course limit it from real IPs. Or make it so new accounts can't post for 2 weeks or need a certain "karma" to post, etc etc.
>I had proposed charging a nominal amount for comment account creation, but I got a hard no. Too bad. It certainly would have thwarted the worst offenders, who were creating dozens of accounts a day.
The project comes up on HN quite frequently, and there are many, many issues built into the project.
For a start they redefine a lot of words and concepts to their own meanings, rather than commonly accepted ones, in a way that's reminiscent of cult-y organisations. These then feed into their own obscure programming language. This serves as a barrier to entry and an in-group language.
Secondly, well it was started by Curtis Yarvin, whose (unpalatable) ideas about neo-feudalism are baked in.
But yeah, look up prior HN discussions if you want more info. Urbit is an oddity, and not necessarily a good one.
It seems to me one of the few real projects using blockchain technologies in a sensible way. Honestly not sure why it wouldn't use blockchain technologies. Urbit has been using blockchain tech since before bitcoin or Ethereum existed.
Here is from the original article quoted on the Wikipedia page: "Since 2002, Yarvin had been working on an algorithm — the backbone of Urbit, a product that would restructure how people use the internet. In 2013, he launched the San Francisco-based company Tlon, which oversees Urbit."
Can't really find any info about when they officially "created" this thing, but color me skeptical when someone says they "worked on blockchain" before blockchain was even invented.
I think I was probably just wrong to describe it as a blockchain (sorry about that). It was a different kind of consensus ledger. Here's an article about it:
Glad that Urbit agrees that they don't need a blockchain. Disappointed that they chose to use one. There are real downsides to using one (currently one of those is speed and another is wasted electricity) and no unique benefits.
>By ensuring that nobody will bother using your service? Sure, I guess.
You're begging the question (i.e. whether or not Urbit ID would succeed). Besides, Urbit ID needn't be forced on users, it could be offered side-by-side other options.
>Besides, what you're proposing is essentially the same as "charging for account creation", but with extra steps.
There are several major differences, the most obvious of which is that an Urbit ID user would not have to pay to create an account. This is because the Urbit ID could be tied to many different accounts across the internets. In other words, a person could pay for one Urbit ID, and then be able to comment on many on-line internet journals using that single Urbit ID.
I had proposed charging a nominal amount for comment account creation, but I got a hard no. Too bad. It certainly would have thwarted the worst offenders, who were creating dozens of accounts a day.