Does anybody wanna know the actual mechanics of why Steam is poorly user-content moderated?
Its because they primarily rely on automated systems, and a very, very small team of inhouse moderators/admins, as opposed to other comparable platforms (social media networks, basically), that have armies of contracted moderators in low income countries, whose job is to get more and more PTSD every day.
Thats how platforms with comparable amounts of user generated content have done moderation, for decades.
Nowadays such platforms are also using those human moderator workforces to train LLMs to be better at auto-moderating or at least auto-flagging things.
Valve absolutely should devote more time and energy to restructuring stages of automated review for user posted comments and content, to improving those review processes, and honestly, should probably just sunset the Steam Forums system, and rethink an entire new approach to it.
But… at the same time, the scale is a significant problem.
Steam has a comparable number of overall daily active users to a major social media platform.
… and the ones that do content moderation, well, they have armies of poor people manually reviewing everything, getting PTSD from that work, and nowadays, training an LLM to be a better auto content moderator.
Genuine question for everyone: Do you think that’s an ethically justifiable solution to the problem?
Offshore and concentrate the hate and suffering?
Other genuine question for everyone: What actual technical solution do you think should be implemented?
Should Valve run a massive LLM, an AI, to either directly moderate or screen all user generated content on Steam?
Final genuine question: Does your answer involve the concept that all user content on a platform, or website, should be the legal responsibility of the platform/website operator?
Because if your answer to that last question is yes, well then you’re basically saying we should overturn Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would mean, amongst other things, any lemmy instance hosted in the US should itself be taken down if any of its users say something like ‘I hope Donald Trump dies a horrible death, soon.’
Because that’s almost certainly going to be viewed as a direct death threat by the current administration, if not just by the currently existing .world mod team.
I believe the answer is simply to give better moderation tools to the developers on their own games’ Store and Forum pages, since it’s developers who seem to have an issue with current moderation.
Yeah, a lot of it is based on having to manually flag things as harassment or bigotry or something like that, especially when it comes to actual game reviews, and it is obviously the case that whatever automated systems Valve currently has in place to auto flag things… are not sufficient.
And just for more context, here is the feed of Steamworks itself, which… more or less, is the sprt of update pipeline for Steam itself, as game devs would interface with it, which is also the system that would be the thing getting updated with new content moderation concepts.
This solves the current problem but reintroduces the one that steam reviews exist to solve: giving the game’s developers control over the most visible discussion channels for the game allows for removal of negative reviews or user backlash. Think about how bad subreddits can be about “removing toxicity” after a GAAS cranks the monetization dial up when the devs are on the mod team.
At some point, the responsibility is gonna end up landing on the consumer to actually read some negative reviews and dismiss the game’s “negative reception” entirely if all the thumbs-downs are yammering on about “woke devs” or “DEI” or “the chinese translation is bad”.
Does anybody wanna know the actual mechanics of why Steam is poorly user-content moderated?
Its because they primarily rely on automated systems, and a very, very small team of inhouse moderators/admins, as opposed to other comparable platforms (social media networks, basically), that have armies of contracted moderators in low income countries, whose job is to get more and more PTSD every day.
Thats how platforms with comparable amounts of user generated content have done moderation, for decades.
Nowadays such platforms are also using those human moderator workforces to train LLMs to be better at auto-moderating or at least auto-flagging things.
Valve absolutely should devote more time and energy to restructuring stages of automated review for user posted comments and content, to improving those review processes, and honestly, should probably just sunset the Steam Forums system, and rethink an entire new approach to it.
But… at the same time, the scale is a significant problem.
Steam has a comparable number of overall daily active users to a major social media platform.
… and the ones that do content moderation, well, they have armies of poor people manually reviewing everything, getting PTSD from that work, and nowadays, training an LLM to be a better auto content moderator.
Genuine question for everyone: Do you think that’s an ethically justifiable solution to the problem?
Offshore and concentrate the hate and suffering?
Other genuine question for everyone: What actual technical solution do you think should be implemented?
Should Valve run a massive LLM, an AI, to either directly moderate or screen all user generated content on Steam?
Final genuine question: Does your answer involve the concept that all user content on a platform, or website, should be the legal responsibility of the platform/website operator?
Because if your answer to that last question is yes, well then you’re basically saying we should overturn Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would mean, amongst other things, any lemmy instance hosted in the US should itself be taken down if any of its users say something like ‘I hope Donald Trump dies a horrible death, soon.’
Because that’s almost certainly going to be viewed as a direct death threat by the current administration, if not just by the currently existing .world mod team.
I believe the answer is simply to give better moderation tools to the developers on their own games’ Store and Forum pages, since it’s developers who seem to have an issue with current moderation.
Well ok, that sounds reasonable to me!
What kinds of tools do you mean?
Like, I’m not trying to be duplicitous, I genuienly want Steam to not be a cesspool.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/marketing/community_moderation
There’s an overview of what currently exists.
Yeah, a lot of it is based on having to manually flag things as harassment or bigotry or something like that, especially when it comes to actual game reviews, and it is obviously the case that whatever automated systems Valve currently has in place to auto flag things… are not sufficient.
And just for more context, here is the feed of Steamworks itself, which… more or less, is the sprt of update pipeline for Steam itself, as game devs would interface with it, which is also the system that would be the thing getting updated with new content moderation concepts.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017
And here is basically the Steam Group for Steamworks/Steam itself, more or less, that may also be relevant:
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks
This solves the current problem but reintroduces the one that steam reviews exist to solve: giving the game’s developers control over the most visible discussion channels for the game allows for removal of negative reviews or user backlash. Think about how bad subreddits can be about “removing toxicity” after a GAAS cranks the monetization dial up when the devs are on the mod team.
At some point, the responsibility is gonna end up landing on the consumer to actually read some negative reviews and dismiss the game’s “negative reception” entirely if all the thumbs-downs are yammering on about “woke devs” or “DEI” or “the chinese translation is bad”.