[HN Gopher] Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficul... ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: Moderator Mayhem, a game about the difficulties of content moderation Author : randylubin Score : 154 points Date : 2023-05-11 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (moderatormayhem.engine.is) (TXT) w3m dump (moderatormayhem.engine.is) | blast wrote: | Is https://www.engine.is/ an industry lobbying group? That's what | it looks like. | schoen wrote: | Yes, it is. | ianferrel wrote: | In the tutorial, the very first card I was presented with was | reported for being "illegal", and the description was (from | memory. I might not have it quite right) | | "A post about the movie Cocaine Bear recommends doing cocaine | while watching the movie and contains a photograph of a bag of | white powder with the hashtag #cocaine" | | That... seems like an obvious joke to me. And even if it's not, | while "doing cocaine" is illegal, photographs of white powders | are not, nor is suggesting that people do cocaine, nor is | portraying them apparently doing so. We can know this is true | because the producers and actors who worked on the film Cocaine | Bear were not arrested. | | Content moderation _is_ hard, but I 'm not very impressed that | the very first card shown got it (in my opinion) totally wrong. | idiotsecant wrote: | It's ironic that the first post on this thread is about missing | the point of the first card that user saw. | ianferrel wrote: | What was the point of it, and how did I miss it? | matthewfcarlson wrote: | This is showing how hard content moderation really is. It's | judgement calls and very often no one is happy. Seeing more | information takes an angering amount of time, which makes | me think this is a fun game that makes an excellent point. | | Edit: In some ways, a card that's incredibly contextual as | the first one is a brilliant move. | ianferrel wrote: | I'm not convinced that putting a real head-scratcher as | the very first choice in a tutorial mode is a brilliant | move at all. Tutorials are supposed to be easy and hand- | holding. | | But also: this isn't actually a hard judgment call. It's | just bad instructions. There's an objective difference | between "content that breaks laws" and "content that | promotes the breaking of laws" and the rules could easily | be changed to indicate the one they want. | | If you were playing a platformer tutorial and you came to | a gap and the tutorial instructions said "Press A to jump | over the gap" and then when you tried you fell in and | died and the tutorial then said "That was too big a gap | to jump over. You should have pressed [Down] to climb | over it instead", would you think "Ah, what a brilliant | meditation on trusting trust and how the right choice is | not obvious" or would you think "this is a shitty | tutorial for a dumb game"? I'm not saying there's _for | sure_ a right answer here. I could imagine a well-made | game where the tutorial straight-up lies to you and gives | you the wrong directions. But most games like that are | just badly written and poorly thought out. | bisby wrote: | "Content that breaks laws" "Content that promotes the | breaking of laws" "Content that is clearly | satire/parody/a joke" | | A lot of time context matters. In a forum thread called | "What would be the worst title for a self help book?" a | post that just says "Give up, kill yourself" is not | actually promoting self harm. It's saying that its the | worst advice. | | assuming the entire point of the game is "moderation is | harder than you think, stop assuming all mods are power | tripping, they have tough choices to make!" -- the | tutorial isn't supposed to be teaching you how to answer | the questions properly, because answering questions | properly isn't the point of the game. It's teaching you | that about how hard moderation is. | | Also, I've played plenty of games where the tutorial | involves dying and then the follow up is learning how not | to die (generally in games where dying is common and they | want to indicate that "dying isn't the same as game over, | this isn't Super Mario for NES") | ianferrel wrote: | I think that content moderation is in fact quite | difficult, even given clear rules to follow, because so | much content requires lots of context to understand. | | But that makes me even more annoyed at this game which | rather than presenting me with legitimately difficult | judgment calls, just gave me clear rules that were _not | the rules that the actual game used_ when determining | whether I did the right thing. | | It's possible that this is a cleverly designed thing to | make you realize that the _real_ rules are unwritten and | the whole thing is a Kafkaesque contraption with no | correct answers. Or it 's just a quickly-made game where | no one proofread the actual instructions they were giving | players. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | It's not, because the site tells you there is a perfect | answers. On this card, it tells you should ban it. | | OP didn't miss anything, the website is not subtly showing | you how content moderation is difficult, it's telling you: we | want to moderate it that way and you are failing or | succeeding. That's not a lesson. That's gameplay. | mirashii wrote: | > Content moderation is hard, but I'm not very impressed that | the very first card shown got it (in my opinion) totally wrong | | The authors are very clear that there are no right or wrong | answers. Interpreting it that way misses the entire point of | the exercise. | ianferrel wrote: | I mean, when I approved leaving up the cocaine post, the game | that they authored gave me a big red X and said I did it | wrong that it clearly was illegal and should have been taken | down. | | Where were they clear that there are no right or wrong | answers? | wmf wrote: | The users who submit reports are fallible, the moderators | are fallible, and the bosses who rate the moderators are | also fallible. Sometimes you'll be right and the system | will still say you're wrong. | Zak wrote: | The "illegal" rule requires a lot of clarification. The | interpretation here seems to be "It's against our policy to | post about engaging in illegal activities", or maybe "it's | against our policy to advocate illegal activities". | | Services based in the US are not legally obligated to prevent | users from writing about using cocaine, or pictures of white | powders they're claiming are cocaine, or writing that it's | desirable to use cocaine, so the post itself is not _illegal_. | Real policies for content moderators should be much more | detailed than what 's in this game so that most moderators will | reach the same conclusions about whether a post violates the | policy. | gnopgnip wrote: | It's not just about what's legal, it's whatever the boss says | oldtownroad wrote: | That's the point though, right? Encouraging illegal activity | may not itself be illegal but moderators aren't arbiters of the | law, they're protecting the integrity of the website for the | intended user base. If you want to allow people to encourage | cocaine usage on your website, you have to be prepared to deal | with law enforcement -- because when someone follows the advice | and dies with the website open on their computer, the website | operators will get a call... -- and not many people want to | risk their entire company because "it's legal to encourage | people to take cocaine!" | | Moderation _is_ hard and that example is... the perfect | example. User reports are rarely accurate but still valuable. | commandlinefan wrote: | > the website operators will get a call | | Then what we actually need isn't more content moderation, we | need explicit laws explicitly _protecting_ website operators | and any other publishers who are actually following the law. | pixl97 wrote: | I mean not really... sometimes some content just sucks and | you don't want it on your site regardless of its legality. | | Start shitposting here on HN and see how long your posts | hang around. | commandlinefan wrote: | But then that becomes a site owner editorial decision | rather than a fear of legal reprisals decision. | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: | How can one protect the integrity of a website if they're | undermining free speech rights and simultaneously derailing | conversations and fragmenting communities while doing so? | | Though we didn't first define what "integrity" meant, it now | seems impossible to formulate a meaning for it that isn't | absurdly ironic given the actions performed to protect it. | | One could be forgiven if we were talking about a forum or | website that exists in a totalitarian regime like China... | better that there be some conversation than the only other | option, none at all. But in the US or Europe or any other | nation that considers itself even minimally enlightened? | | Moderation is not the solution. It may even be the problem. | ianferrel wrote: | Certainly social media companies can choose to disallow | suggestions that people take illegal actions. But that's not | what the moderation policy for "illegal" content says. | | It says "Content that violates local or international laws or | regulations." | | I don't know all the laws of all the countries, but my | _local_ laws make very little content illegal. Various types | of obscenity, true threats, etc. "You should do drugs while | you watch a movie about drugs" is definitely not one of | those. | | It would be very easy, if that's what they want, to change it | to "Content that encourages breaking local or international | laws or regulations." | oldtownroad wrote: | Visit a platform like LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook and try | to report content: the complex decision tree of what to | report and why will be a good demonstration or how | unintuitive the reality of content moderation is. Every | user of every platform has a different understanding of | even simple concepts, like "scam" and "spam". Report | reasons are _not_ an accurate classification from a trained | expert, they're a thing a user chooses from a list that has | to be designed to both provide valuable context to a | moderator and capture the wide range of different | understandings different users have. | | Suggesting that a reason should be added for the specific | situation you've encountered demonstrates the naive | understanding most people have of moderation and that's | what this game is good at. | | Platforms like Facebook and Twitter will have spent tens of | thousands of people hours thinking about something as | simple as the list of report reasons. | ianferrel wrote: | There are plenty of difficult judgment calls in content | moderating. | | But the difference between "illegal content" and "content | that promotes breaking the law" isn't really one of them | to be made by the moderator. This is just bad | instructions from the game maker. | ethanbond wrote: | You don't think content moderators have to deal with: | "hey kid, you should go shoot up a school?" | | Just cleanly not in their domain? | ianferrel wrote: | I think that content moderators often have to deal with | that issue, and they are given rules like "remove posts | that suggest that others commit violent acts" or | something like that. And those are reasonable rules for | moderators to enforce. | | But the rules that _this_ game give do not include that | rule, and it 's a mark of a poorly designed game that the | rule says "don't allow illegal content" and then when you | (correctly!) apply that rule, the game says "you should | have not allowed this because it's suggesting that | someone do something illegal". Those aren't the same | rule! | | ETA: Like lots of places have rules against reposting | copyrighted content. But a post that said "Psst, kid, you | should go download a movie from the Pirate Bay" should | not be removed under that rule. Because the _content_ of | the post isn 't copyrighted. If they _also_ had a rule | that said "don't _encourage_ piracy ", they could | reasonably take it down under that rule. | ethanbond wrote: | I see I see now what you're saying. You've convinced me | :) | ianferrel wrote: | Always great to have a discussion with open-minded | people. Cheers, internet buddy! | gpm wrote: | You know, I'm nearly certain that that post does violate | some "international law or regulation". | | Do I know which one? Nope, not a clue. But many countries | have pretty weak free speech protections, and pretty strict | drug laws. The idea that that violates none of them seems | quite unlikely. | | The fact that your local laws have strong free speech | protections doesn't really matter when the criteria is | "local _or international_ ". If it violates north korea's, | china's, or singapores laws it still violates that | restriction. | DennisP wrote: | Maybe the policy should be rewritten then. If no content | is allowed that violates any country's free speech | restriction, then it probably means the site will remove | criticism of the government of North Korea. | [deleted] | rodgerd wrote: | Well, that's a problem that social media companies have | with China and India, both of which are big markets. | | These are actual problems. | lostgame wrote: | ...that seems like an obvious joke to you? | | My God, we must run in different circles. I had people I know | who shamelessly posted almost that exact thing. A few of them, | lol. | | They weren't joking. :P | clutchdude wrote: | Hey- not bad! | | I got 4 out of 5 stars with high ratings. | | One thing I'd add: doxxing of a quasi legal type such as posting | details about a politicians family member and their private | dealings. | | Certainly captures the feel of going through modqueue and making | snap decisions. | | Glad I don't have a boss constantly reviewing my decisions | though. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | I expected the tick to mean "take action on review/appeal", and | the cross to mean "reject review/appeal", so that threw me for a | few of them. | | A few of the cards were _really_ frustrating: the correct | solution to some of them would be writing a ten-word response, or | making an edit, but I only had "take down" and "leave up" | buttons. ('It's just a game!' I remind myself.) I do hope _real_ | content moderators aren 't so bereft of tooling. | | The story is... really boring, actually? There are a couple dozen | little things going on in the background, but not many, and | there's not enough gameplay time for them to be explored. I'd | hoped for something more like Papers, Please. | | The sentiment of the general public doesn't seem to behave | realistically, either: not when I made obviously-unpopular | decisions, and not when the CEO made obviously-unpopular | decisions. | pphysch wrote: | Mobile UI broke completely on me before my first round was | complete (Chrome, Android). Otherwise seems well-done and a | useful learning tool. | TomK32 wrote: | I'd call that breakdown realistic. | [deleted] | NickC25 wrote: | Got fired after 2 rounds. | | Well made! | stonogo wrote: | This is more like a game about shitty management communication. | The rules are fairly arbitrary, and you're not told about any of | them until you screw up, and even clear-cut cases like someone | posting someone else's phone number are used to slap your wrist | (apparently the second person consented, but nobody explains why | that's your problem. Surely the second person can post their own | phone number). Some advertisement is okay, other advertisement is | forbidden. There's never a policy about which is which, you just | have to guess. If this is how social media websites handle | content reviewing it's no wonder the industry is a cesspit. | | In all after playing for about ten minutes, I have to conclude | that this is some kind of corporate apologetics for bad content | management. The pointless timer really drives home that this | problem could be solved by spending more money on training | content reviewers and hiring more of them. I came away from the | game feeling like it's a sequel to Papers, Please. | tedunangst wrote: | You should intern as a content moderator and create a game | based on your real experience. | stonogo wrote: | I've been involved plenty of content moderation, just not as | an outsourcing target for a microblog company. I suspect the | job is much easier when the rules are explicit, provided in | advance, and the moderation team is sufficiently staffed, | which is the environment I worked in. I have other priorities | than making a computer game about it, so we'll never know for | sure. | shadowgovt wrote: | Moderation is a back-stop service with plenty of candidates in | the pool; companies fire new moderators for coming into the job | with the wrong "taste" all the time because it's much, much | easier to cycle someone out and grab someone new than to train | someone who has the wrong "common sense." | mulmen wrote: | TBH I think this is a feature of human nature. It's | impossible to impose your will and opinion at scale because | you have to rely on other people with their own will. You can | have small, curated communities, but you can't build Twitter | without it devolving into, well, Twitter. | | The entire concept of modern social media where every site | wants to be everything to everyone is wrong. Even the | "fediverse" gets this wrong IMHO. There's plenty of room on | the web for all of us. Links are features, not a threat to | your retention metric. | sdwr wrote: | "corporate apologetics" - This is pretty clearly about the | actual experience of working as a front-line worker in content | management. Percieved time pressure, edge cases, lack of | context, juggling 100 different priorities. | schoen wrote: | It's hosted by Engine, a lobbying organization for startups, | so it seems likely that they think it will show people that | companies hosting user-generated content face a hard | situation (and double-binds where whatever they do will anger | people). | | I was personally more convinced of the double-bind issue | after playing: different groups of people (at every level) | have different norms, the Internet helps bring them all in | contact with each other, and I can see how that's a recipe | for making them angry with each other and also with the | intermediary. | squirtlebonflow wrote: | Is the point of the game supposed to be that the only possible | way to keep up is to blindly approve 90% of them and then | actually look only at the ones that get appealed? | cushpush wrote: | This to me highlights the many delights of freedom of speech. You | can choose what level of chaos to permit. To enforce a global | ethic this way seems kinda snooty. | klabb3 wrote: | I think the cards should just be what the post is, not a | description of it. The descriptions (a) are hard to pattern match | quickly and (b) the creators value judgments are inserted (for | instance "ethnic slur" is ambiguous in many real cases, eg negro | could be legit in a spanish-speaking or referencing context, or | "white trash" which could both be a slur and the title of an edgy | Vice documentary). In my experience the moderator personality | types have actual blind spots in their biases around political | topics (the misinformation, harassment, hate speech categories). | They seem entirely unaware that had they lived 10 years earlier | they would have completely different metrics. | | That said, one important takeaway I got is that moderation needs | priorities. While I'm thinking for 15s about whether a review | about a herbal health product is "medically misleading" I have | CSAM in the queue right after. | k__ wrote: | Requires closer looks too often. | Minor49er wrote: | You don't actually get paid for playing this game either. Just | like real life! | h1fra wrote: | Very interesting, got into level 6 then got a bit bored. | | For eduction purpose would be cool to explain rules after the | fact. | | Small feedback: when there is an appeal, I'm not sure wether | green means approving the appeal or stay with the initial | decision. | mulmen wrote: | I loved the part where I lost a bunch of time to attend a | mandatory nerf battle then got fired for not doing enough work. | cushpush wrote: | It's probably more of a spectrum of offensive to inoffensive, so | the binary choice between permissible and not is going to vary | depending on context. Maybe it could be a slider with "acceptable | ranges" depending on platform? For example, I think 4chan would | not mind most of these posts. But GlobalSocialNet might have some | problems with some. | alexb_ wrote: | This game was made by a political action group for startups. Here | is their agenda: https://engineis.squarespace.com/s/Startup- | Policy-Agenda-202... | mydriasis wrote: | The "see more" button does not seem to be working for me, which | is pretty much required to play the game effectively :( | babuloseo wrote: | Where is my ability to ban anyone that disagrees with my point of | view or my agenda? I think this game needs to be modified to | autoban anyone that appeals my mod decisions :) | seany wrote: | I don't get what the point of this is. Just approve everything | and move on | kadoban wrote: | This said on a site that basically only exists because the | moderation is extremely well done, and is definitely not just | "approve everything". | TomK32 wrote: | Skipped the tutorial and got fired pretty soon, seems unrealistic | ;-) | dontupvoteme wrote: | This reminded me that "Papers Please" exists. | clutchdude wrote: | "Glory to Arstotzka" | | If you liked that game, you might like Police Contraband. There | is some bad combat aspects forced into the game, but it's | enjoyable. | iamnafets wrote: | This gave me PTSD from working in T&S. Impressive level of | detail, nice work creating it! | DiscourseFan wrote: | This would be better if there was more moral/ethical depth. It | also doesn't explore how content moderation policies shape | discourse and how moderators often times abuse such policies to | manipulate posts that fit their ideology. | Daveenjay wrote: | Does Twitters community notes kind of fix moderation or could | that also be manipulated? | Karunamon wrote: | Notes usually go too far in the other direction, for instance | you will rarely see notes on mainstream politicians even when | they are speaking objective falsehoods. This is because that | system requires an agreement from people who usually disagree | for a note to show up. | [deleted] | jakelazaroff wrote: | Kind of both. Community notes and moderation are both | emotional humans making the best decisions they can. | | There is no "fix". There's no magic. It's just us in here. | moritzwarhier wrote: | Extremely well-executed all in all. I like it. | joe_the_user wrote: | Wow, | | The game is tense and boring and it illustrates both why paid | Facebook "moderators" suffer PTSD and why this so-called | "moderation" fails to improve the content of discussion or build | community. | | Actually worthwhile moderation involves someone caring about the | whole direction of the discussion and not merely considering "is | this content over the line", especially since a large portion of | "don't talk about drugs" or whatever is pure CYA. "Don't say that | 'cause someone might sue us". | idopmstuff wrote: | That works when you're dealing with something the scale of HN | and have the resources to hire dang. At the scale of Facebook | or Twitter, though? The sort of moderation you're describing is | just impossible. | nneonneo wrote: | I guess I'm boring somehow, I got 100% in several rounds then got | promoted after round 8 (which ends the game!). | | The trick seems to be that you have to check the "extra info" | frequently, and be reasonably quick to decide as soon as you see | it. It doesn't seem possible to make the right decision on many | of the cards without that context. It is kinda fun to see all the | attempts to game the system. | yaseer wrote: | Would love to see @dang's take on this! | stainablesteel wrote: | meh, its a bad interface | | if i wanted to moderate something more effectively i would make a | better one | | i'd rather blame the difficulty of moderation itself on people's | inability to innovate | pavel_lishin wrote: | A neat game, but my enjoyment of it is somewhat dulled since I | watch my mom play this in real life on a daily basis - her job is | moderating product reviews. | jonny_eh wrote: | Did it enhance your empathy for her work? | pavel_lishin wrote: | Not really; I've sat with her as she worked, and she shares | enough things that I feel like this didn't add much to my | knowledge. | | (And she doesn't take Nerf breaks!) | ftxbro wrote: | i wonder does she know about gpt ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-11 23:00 UTC)