Comments on: Designing for Evil

By: Navigating Social Media: What’s Real and What’s Not on Twitter – Snatch

Tue, 22 Aug 2017 04:54:23 +0000

[…] fake accounts to be created at an exponential volume and speed (I suggest starting with reading Designing for Evil if this is your […]

By: NPM, Tay, and the Need for Design | Form Follows Function

NPM, Tay, and the Need for Design | Form Follows Function — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:40:29 +0000

[…] use cases, but also its abuse cases. A post written almost a year ago by Brandon Harris, “Designing for Evil”, conveys this […]

By: jorm

jorm — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:47:48 +0000

In reply to Jorg Morgtorg. Except they're not anonymous or unfiltered. They're moderated and approved.

By: Jorg Morgtorg

Jorg Morgtorg — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:45:59 +0000

A bit late to the party, and while I do appreciate the article, I have to admit it’s a bit hilarious that after all the discussion of designing against abuse you ended up leaving comments open, anonymous, and seemingly unfiltered.

By: jorm

jorm — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:40:03 +0000

In reply to Solipsisticurge. For now.

By: Solipsisticurge

Solipsisticurge — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:00:12 +0000

In reply to Stephan. ...and still living.

By: Luka

Luka — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 04:36:42 +0000

I’ve never seen someone refer to the deadnaming issue. I’m surprised because few people even acknowledge the existence of transgender people. (Now that I think about it, I’m glad that facebook let me change my name when I transitioned.)

Thanks for voicing it

By: jorm

jorm — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:54:57 +0000

In reply to pikdum.

You may want to actually read the words I wrote, if you think this is about “unmoderated comments”. I know that Gamergaters like making everything about that, about how Anita should just suck it up and take it, and you see everything through that naive lens, but it’s not.

Feel free to come back when you have something intelligent to say.

By: pikdum

pikdum — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 01:59:07 +0000

In reply to jorm.

Sorry, I’m not sure but I thought the problem here was unmoderated negative opinions? I don’t cosider this a problem that can be solved where a solution is desirable. In private you simply communicate with who you want. If you don’t like someone, you can just not talk to them. In public, anyone can say what they want about you. You can’t control the public’s opinion. You can also construct a public medium with moderation and kick out anyone who says something you perceive as negative. Sorry if these are bad examples, but this is what marketing angencies and North Korea do. The end result is a warped view of reality as you can only see a certain subset of opinions. This often even alienates readers to the point where they just ignore the medium. Personally, I’ve received “death threats” on my public facets as well, but I just ignore them. I don’t know if everyone else is like me, but I also don’t spend time going through and deleting them, as that would be self-patronizing and I feel like it’s an attempt at manipulating public perception (this was on a medium intended for mature audiences of course, just as Wikipedia is).

By: Yvo

Yvo — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 05:18:08 +0000

You really make clear observations and do supply the current solutions to the problems.

Only they all fall in the same catogory as democracy it gives the best options yet. But none of them are really good.

Power corrupts so who controls the moderators or what needs moderating?

There is no problem in a perfect dictatorship, till the point the dictator prooves imperfect. So alas you give the best solutions yet, but they dont suffice.

Well written peace that made me think, thank you