Rethinking Moderation: Interview with Alexander Cobleigh ===================== As we all know, moderation is one of the internet's most difficult issues. We've all seen the pattern: toxic behaviors manifest on our favourite social media platforms & metastasize through them. We complain, moderators struggle to keep up, & bad actors evade protective measures. Folks then leave the platform or strike an uneasy peace as the toxicity becomes endemic. Alexander Cobleigh thought there had to be a better way. So he created a new kind of moderation system: TrustNet [https://cblgh.org/articles/trustnet.html]. Rusty chats with him about this fascinating development. Alex can be found on Mastodon: @cblgh@merveilles.town --- QUESTION: Thanks for agreeing to do this email interview bit. You're doing some fascinating work & I wanted a chance to pick your brain a bit more. ANSWER: Of course! I'm glad that you think so & honoured that you asked. Q: What got you interested in developing TrustNet as a project? What motivated you to take on the work yourself? A: It all started with Cabal, an open source peer-to-peer chat platform I have developed with some friends, needing moderation capabilities. We reached a point where we couldn't in good faith keep developing features without the ability to remove potential malicious actors from a chat. At the same time, I had also reached the point of my university studies that my Master's thesis was coming up. So, really, the way it got started was me thinking for a few months on how Cabal could have a moderation system better than the individualistic naive solution of "well every single person needs to individually block trolls", as well as wanting to work on something worthwhile for my Master's thesis. Q: The system seems like it may require a complex infrastructure. What have been some of the challenges in trying to implement such a system? A: It doesn't really require any complex infrastructure, really. What you need is the following: some way for people to assign trust to others (i.e. an interface), a way to store those trust statements, & a way to transmit stored trust statements between participants It would, for example, be possible to use TrustNet in a fork of Mastodon, where a modified UI could let people of the Mastodon instance assign each other as subjective moderators. The server hosting the instance would receive and keep track of the trust issued by each person. A given participant could then have a moderated experience through the moderators they choose and trust, which could be different for different people (pending on who they trust).</p> Of course, the current implementation is built with peer-to-peer systems like Cabal or Secure Scuttlebutt in mind, but server-based paradigms can just as well also make use of TrustNet. The difficulties in developing TrustNet were in trying to represent behaviour that made sense socially, while also making use of the system's transitivity. The trickiest bit was coming up with a good solution on how to partition the calculated subjective trust ranks where basically each person in your trust graph is ordered according to their calculated trust rank. The problem with the rankings is where to make a cut such that everybody above the cut are regarded as trusted, and everyone below it as not trusted (e.g. their moderation actions won't be automatically applied, due to being too far away from you). Q: In our era of tech dystopia, any kind of algorithmic ranking is frightening to a lot of folks. What distinguishes a trust-based moderation system from systems that assign a kind of "social credit score"? A: The way I interpret algorithmic ranking with your mention of a social credit score is from the following point of view of the problem: If everybody assigns everyone else a trust score, then you have a popularity contest where the people that manage to get the most trust, well, win (and people without trust fall outside of society). What this describes, however, is a *reputation* system. Reputation is an aggregate, derived from the crowd. It can be used to inform trust, but it is not trust. Reputation is "objective"; the reputation score for one person looks the same no matter from which person's perspective you are taking. Trust, on the other hand, is subjective. My trusted peers are different from your trusted peers, which are different from a third person's trusted peers. Algorithmic ranking typically builds on machine learning, where you increasingly dig yourself into you-shaped hole that is impossible to get out of from the perspective of the ranking algorithm. The trust-based approach I present in TrustNet is kind of a parallel route one can go down to tackling similar problems, but where the end user is in control, instead. Q: I think one of the most fascinating aspects of this system is the notion of the Trust Area, which as you state in your blog post, "captures the context that the trust is extended within; for outside of the realm of computers, we trust each other varying amounts depending on a given domain." This makes total sense, but it's something I rarely see considered in online platforms. What inspired that idea for you?</p> A: I wanted to avoid conflating trust within different areas, so that TrustNet could be used for different purposes within the same chat system. You might have one trust area, let's call it 'general purpose', that controls whether people can send DMs to you, whether their profile images should be visible, and whether the images they post should be automatically shown or not. In the same system, you might want another trust area to control who can hide or remove users and posts on your behalf. If we consider these two trust areas, we can kind of get a feel for the 'general purpose' trust area being less restrictive than the 'moderation' trust area.</p> After reading the computational trust literature more, my hunch on the notion of a trust area was verified by it having been present in various papers and research, albeit termed differently.</p> Q: I was wondering if you could talk a bit more about how you imagine an average user interacting with this kind of system? How do you imagine them interfacing with this system?</p> A: If we consider the moderation trust area, I basically think that friends in a chat system like Secure Scuttlebutt would assign trust for each other to delegate blocking responsibility. It would look something like, going to one of your friends's profiles, clicking a dropdown titled "Moderation Similarity" and picking one of the options: None, Some overlap, Similar, Identical. Each option would represent an increasing trust weight, which essentially controls the impact of a trusted person's recommendations (that is, people whom *they* trust for moderation). You don't need to do this for that many people for it to start having an effect, maybe like 4-5 friends and that's all you'll ever need. On SSB, I have a feel for whom of my friends have a similar blocking policy as my own (some may be too eager to block, for example). Q: What will you be working on next with TrustNet? A: Ah, that's a great question. The first thing that comes to mind is to integrate it into Secure Scuttlebutt, where there is currently a lack of any kind of delegated moderation system. The community has been very receptive and encouraging of my thesis in general, and integrating it with SSB, in particular. I would also like to experiment with it further in Cabal, playing around with a kind of mechanism for allowing greater privileges to people who are trusted by my friends (or their friends). What I mean by that is, for example, using TrustNet to limit which peers I will allow image posts or avatars from. So, if someone is trusted at all from my perspective, my cabal client would download and show their avatars, whereas for untrusted peers a placeholder would be shown, instead. This limits the attack surface of malicious actors like trolls or brigades. Finally, it would also be fun to experiment more playfully with TrustNet and see what comes out of that :)