> Build the features to allow readers to self-moderate
This is effectively impossible because of the bullshit asymmetry principle[1]. It's easier to create content that needs moderation than it is to moderate it. In general, there is a fundamental asymmetry to life that it takes less effort to destroy than it does to create, less work to harm than heal. With a slightly sharpened piece of metal and about a newton of force, you can end a life. No amount of effort can resurrect it.
It simply doesn't scale to let bad actors cause all the harm they want and rely on good actors to clean up their messes after the fact. The harm must be prevented before it does damage.
> make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc).
The simplest approach would be no API at all, but that won't stop scammers and bad actors. It's effectively impossible to prohibit screen scrapers.
> Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.
This is, I think, the best idea. If having an identity and sharing content costs actual money, you can at least make spamming not be cost effective. But that still doesn't eliminate human bad actors griefing others. Some are happy to pay to cause mayhem.
There is no simple technical solution here. Fundamentally, the value proposition of a community is the other good people you get to connect to. But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. For a community to thrive, you've got to encourage the good behaviors and police the bad ones. That takes work and human judgement.
> But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people.
This is a fundamental reality of life that cannot be avoided. There is no magical solution (technical or otherwise) to prevent this. At best, you can put in some basic safeguards (like what you/I have stated above) but ultimately people need to learn to accept that you can't make everything 100% safe.
Also, things like muting/blocking work but the ugly truth is that people love the negative excitement of fighting online (it's an outlet for life's pressure/disappointments). Accepting that reality would do a lot of people a lot of good. A staggering amount of the negativity one encounters on social media is self-inflicted by either provoking or engaging with being provoked.
This is effectively impossible because of the bullshit asymmetry principle[1]. It's easier to create content that needs moderation than it is to moderate it. In general, there is a fundamental asymmetry to life that it takes less effort to destroy than it does to create, less work to harm than heal. With a slightly sharpened piece of metal and about a newton of force, you can end a life. No amount of effort can resurrect it.
It simply doesn't scale to let bad actors cause all the harm they want and rely on good actors to clean up their messes after the fact. The harm must be prevented before it does damage.
> make it "expensive" to create or run bots (e.g., make it so API access is limited without an excessive fee, limit screen scrapers, etc).
The simplest approach would be no API at all, but that won't stop scammers and bad actors. It's effectively impossible to prohibit screen scrapers.
> Make it so you can only follow X people with a free account, but upgrade to follow more. Limit tweets/replies/etc based on this. Not only will it work, but it will remove the need for all of the moderation and arguments around bias.
This is, I think, the best idea. If having an identity and sharing content costs actual money, you can at least make spamming not be cost effective. But that still doesn't eliminate human bad actors griefing others. Some are happy to pay to cause mayhem.
There is no simple technical solution here. Fundamentally, the value proposition of a community is the other good people you get to connect to. But some people are harmful. They may not always be harmful, or may be harmful only to some people. For a community to thrive, you've got to encourage the good behaviors and police the bad ones. That takes work and human judgement.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law