pull down to refresh

From what I've read in the past, the current plan is to rely entirely on the free market of zaps to raise the high quality posts above the nonsense, and NOT allow outright deletion by founders, as to not give them too much power over the content in the territory.
All good if this is the case, but when I see posts pop up that clearly don't belong in one of the territories I founded, it triggers the inner moderator inside of me, as I know the junk posts are lowering the experience of everyone visiting the territory. (Even if they have zero zaps, they're still there taking up space.)
I'd argue the "free marketization" would better apply to the founder level, not the individual level. What do I mean by that? πŸ‘‡
Rather than giving the entirety of posters free reign to post anything they want, in any territory they want, regardless of relevance, with essentially no consequence, founders SHOULD have the power to delete junk posts.
Then, SN users can decide if a given founder is abusing their power too much, and leave if they so choose to (or start a new/better territory if they believe they'd be a better mod). There could also be transparency features added, such as a "deleted posts" section inside the territory, where everyone can view the posts the founder has deleted. This would make it very easy for people to tell if the founder is doing a good job keeping the territory clean, or abusing their moderation privilege.
TL;DR: I don't think paying a few sats for posts will be enough deterrence to prevent spammers to push junk all over the irrelevant territories. Rather than relying entirely on post-level zaps to separate the good posts from the bad, I believe founders should be able to delete irrelevant junk from their territories (with plenty of transparency so the crowd can closely monitor their performance if they choose to), as a method of keeping territories maximally clean and high-signal.
I believe this would be the best way to set up territory moderation in preparation for the SN scaling we're hopeful of seeing in the future.
I hope this makes sense. I drank a lot of coffee this morning and am a bit all over the place today πŸ˜‚
Agree/disagree? Happy to hear all perspectives on this as we figure out how to properly balance the poster/founder power dynamic of territories.
BONUS: Here are 2 posts that recently popped up in /~AMA, which inspired this post. They have nothing to do with AMA, and their mere existence in the territory now triggers me πŸ˜‚
I read through some of these responses and the original post. What came to me is the idea of having a kick out option. This can go to the kicked territory.
So you are not deleting or hiding a post where someone paid to post but you are kicking the post out of a curated section.
No Agenda has an Art Generator. Adam and John, the hosts of no Agenda will go through and comment on the art. The artists love it and keep submitting. Sometimes the critique is harsh but so what!
This can be done here too. Like these steps:
  1. Post
  2. Post kicked to "kicked".
  3. A message is provided: " You got kicked out! Don't worry, your post is here in the kicked territory. Put up a bounty and the kicker can comment on why you got kicked out the kicker can guide you toward a successful post in the future. "
  4. Message goes to the kicker for review per bounty.
  5. Kicker can respond by 5a. Raising the bounty for review 5b. Answering and getting the bounty 5c. Ignoring and just ghost the nonsense 5d. Pass-out: "I don't want to deal with this, here's a bounty and anyone can respond."
  6. Original Post gets feedback or is ghosted.
If someone is willing to pay sats for spam then they can pay for curated content. The kicked territory just cleans up everyone's territory by sending the mess out. Meanwhile those who weren't paying attention can improve their posts and those of a territory can improve loyalty by commenting and getting rewarded or retarded.
Kicked can even show stats on kicked bounties, best kicker, best kick back, and super grifters who paid ridiculous bounties for placement. Even a grift master who will accept any bounty.
I hope this makes sense but the summary is to kick out bad content, allow it to be reviewed (and bring extra sats) and make friends by being tough and increasing intellectual competition.
reply
I would add one more option to your proposal. Instead of the territory owner only being able to extradite a post to the kicked territory, the owner could extradite it to any other territory. This would help organize information more efficiently.
However, this raises a question about price differences between territories. Who would pay or receive the price difference?
reply
case you haven't read it. cc: @k00b, @ekzyis, @kr
reply
Good point. I think there is something to this. Perhaps in the feedback you can suggest territories and the original post person can act by moving to that territory and paying the sats to join.
reply
Other territory founders have asked for this. We certainly will give such opt-in powers to them and label their territory as moderated.
I think for a first effort, the founder/moderator could get a one-click 'outlaw' button which will effectively hide the post/comment for everyone except people in Wild West Mode.
reply
That's basically what I was thinking about while reading the post.
reply
I think this plan should be implemented, and make it optional. I for one do not want the ability/ responsibility of censoring/removing posts.
reply
Awesome. Didn't even think of just having a "moderated" tag in exchange for deleting privilege, that'd be a great first step. Thanks for the update πŸ‘
reply
deleted by author
reply
I’m with you with everything. I hate when people just share links and nothing else. I want my territory to be about discussion. Not just a place to spread spam. It makes me want to up the sats to post but that would just be punishing good users for the actions of bad users.
I’m working but I’ll right a more thoughtful response later. Thanks for bringing this up
reply
As the founder, can't you pretty easily offset high post fees by zapping it back to quality content, but not to spam?
reply
If so, I don’t know how to do that.
reply
What share of post fees do you get? I thought it was pretty high.
I'm just saying that if you set your fee at 100 sats, then you could zap any relevant posts in your territory at least 100 sats (or maybe a little less if you want to turn a profit). That way everyone making quality posts is covered, but spam is discouraged.
reply
It’s not a bad idea but the operational time it would take would be tough for me as I have a lot going on.
reply
Fair enough. I don't have a good sense of the notification volume for territory founders.
reply
I hate when people just share links and nothing else. I want my territory to be about discussion.
You can configure your territory to only allow discussion posts. Or is that not enough / you still want to allow link posts?
reply
I don’t care if someone shares a link. It’s the fact they only share a link with no context or discussion. It’s feels like they are just trying to generate traffic to their site. Not add value to the group.
reply
Update: Just checked another territory I founded, /~health, and the top 5 posts are random pictures of cities and stars. WTF happened while I've been gone this week? Spam goin' crazy πŸ˜΅β€πŸ’«
reply
Those are in recent but I hear you.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Aren't bots made plattform-specific? At least for SN they must be because of the sats.
Who bothers to write a bot, bothers programming spending sats into it but doesn't bother programming making the posting on topic?
Who would do that? And why? Make it make sense.
reply
Did you try raising the fee to post in your territory?
I thought twice just now before posting in ~meta as it would cost me 1000 sats. Might discourage some spammers.
But I do agree as a founder that some moderation tools might be useful at some point. I've just been lucky in ~science for now that most content posted has fit the territory.
reply
I was hoping to avoid doing this, because I don't want to hurt real contributors for the actions of the wandering spammer. But I suppose a slight raise may be in order to ensure only quality content is posted. I'll think about it.
reply
Can't we just downzap this content now?
reply
I haven't looked too deep into that feature, is there a TLDR somewhere explaining it?
From the sound of it it seems like a good way to vote against something, but IMO for outright spam, a heavier hammer is needed, as to not clog things up with junk
reply