删除.svn文件会发生什么_删除评论后会发生什么

删除.svn文件会发生什么

重点 (Top highlight)

Picture the scene: You have produced something and uploaded it into one of the internet’s content buckets. If it’s a video, that might be YouTube. If it’s an image, Instagram. If it’s some writing, it could be this very site. You might now get some likes or hearts or claps. On-screen is a tiny meter, measuring the warmth of one’s heart.

P icture场景：你已经产生的东西，并将其上传到互联网的内容容器中的一个。 如果是视频，则可能是YouTube。 如果是图片，Instagram。 如果是文字，那可能就是这个网站。 您现在可能会得到一些喜欢，喜欢或鼓掌。 屏幕上是一个很小的仪表，可以测量人的心脏的温暖。

And then the comments roll in: “This is bad and you are bad and anyone who agrees with this is bad,” one might say, possibly less politely. Maybe the comment is insulting and aggressive. Perhaps it’s racist or sexist, trolling or flaming, looking for an argument, the digital version of shoulder-bumping someone, squaring up, and demanding: “What are you going to do about it?”

然后，评论会出现：“这是 不好，而你不好，任何同意这一点的人都是不好的，”有人可能会说，可能不太客气。 也许这句话是侮辱性和侵略性的。 也许是种族主义或性别歧视，是在拖拉还是在发火，正在寻找一个论点，一个数字版本的人在肩膀上撞人，四处抬头，然后要求：“你打算怎么做？”

What do you do?

你是做什么？

You have a few options:

您有几种选择：

1. You can ignore it. Sticks and stones and all that.
   您可以忽略它。 棍棒和石头等等。
2. You can reply to it. Running the risk of feeding the trolls.
   您可以回复它。 冒着喂巨魔的风险。
3. You can report it to the platform. An act that feels like praying to the fickle internet gods to smite it with digital lightning.
   您可以将其报告给平台。 感觉就像在向善变的互联网之神祈祷，用数字闪电击打它。
4. You can delete the comment (on some platforms). As the commenter is in your “digital house,” you can force them to leave.
   您可以删除评论(在某些平台上)。 由于评论者在您的“数字屋”中，因此您可以强迫他们离开。

5. And there’s the nuclear option. You can delete your whole account, essentially turning over the table and walking out in a huff.

   还有核选择 。 您可以删除整个帐户，本质上是将桌子翻过来，然后大声疾呼。

Technology has added nuance: disabling comments, blocking users (out of sight, out of mind), shadow banning (they can see their comments but no one else can), “greylisting” (slowing down the site for the misbehaving user). No matter how much technology changes, there is a common thread: people.

技术增加了细微差别：禁用评论，阻止用户(看不见，不省人事)，阴影禁止(他们可以看到他们的评论，但其他人则看不到)，“灰名单”(为行为不当的用户降低网站速度)。 无论技术发生了多大变化，都有一个共同点：人。

Deleting an abusive comment under your work has become a political act. Some might say this is tantamount to “deplatforming” or denying “free speech.” But moderators delete comments all the time. When something I write tips beyond a certain level of popularity, spam starts appearing: “Buy cheap Rolex online here.” I delete these without oppressing the rights of the spammers. The writer Jessica Valenti notes that her “best pieces are the ones that generate the most hate.” Movie critic John DeVore has a sense of resignation of the abuse to come: “If we’re lucky,” he says, people who disagree with him “will make an appearance in the comments of this wee blog.”

在您的工作下删除辱骂性评论已成为一项政治行为。 有人可能会说这等于“取消平台化”或否认“言论自由”。 但是版主始终会删除评论。 当我写的技巧超出一定程度的流行时，垃圾邮件开始出现：“在这里在线购买便宜的劳力士。” 我删除这些内容时并不压制垃圾邮件发送者的权利。 作家杰西卡·瓦伦蒂 ( Jessica Valenti)指出 ，“最好的作品是最令人讨厌的作品”。 电影评论家约翰·德维尔(John DeVore) 对即将到来的虐待感到不满：“如果我们很幸运，”他说，不同意他的人“将在这个小博客的评论中露面”。

No matter how much technology changes, there is a common thread: people.

无论技术发生了多大变化，都有一个共同点：人。

The more eyes on your work, the more opinions disagree with it. This doesn’t just happen to public figures. The internet has turned us all into moderators of pixelated communities: Comments build up under tweets about our breakfast or pictures of our dogs. And so we are forced to perform a mental calculation, weighing up each confrontational comment. Is it rude enough to delete? Should we respond or is the comment just trying to start an argument? Does leaving it there endorse that way of talking to each other? Does it put off others from commenting?

越关注您的工作，就会有更多不同意见。 这不仅发生在公众人物身上。 互联网已将我们所有人变成像素化社区的主持人：有关我们的早餐或狗的图片的评论不断累积。 因此，我们被迫进行心理计算，权衡每个对抗性评论。 删除是否粗鲁？ 我们应该回应还是评论只是试图引起争论？ 留在那儿是否支持彼此交谈的方式？ 是否会使其他人不发表评论？

Moderation is hard. Paul Graham, the venture capitalist who started YCombinator, says, somewhat facetiously, that the “single biggest source of stress” for him “was running HN” (Hacker News, where users post links and discuss technology articles). “Don’t start a forum,” he adds. On Facebook and YouTube, this is a full-time job. Outsourced freelancers on zero-hour contracts are emotionally scarred by the content they review. Pinterest has been unable to prevent a range of borderline criminal content. Sometimes whole parts of sites become so problematic that they are banned in one fell swoop, lopped off like infected tree branches. Reddit recently removed 2,000 sites, including The_Donald, which, it said, “antagonized us and other communities.”

适度很难。 创立YCombinator的风险资本家Paul Graham有点滑稽地说，对他来说，“最大的压力来源”正在运行HN(Hacker News，用户在其中发布链接并讨论技术文章)。 他补充说：“不要开论坛。” 在Facebook和YouTube上，这是一项全职工作。 零工时合同的外包自由职业者对他们审查的内容深感震惊 。 Pinterest无法阻止一系列边缘性犯罪内容。 有时，整个站点的问题变得非常棘手，以至于一口气被禁止，就像被感染的树枝一样掉下来。 Reddit最近删除了 2,000个站点，其中包括The_Donald，它说，“使我们和其他社区反感”。

The problem is one of enforcement. Most sites have “community guidelines” and lists of acceptable behavior, but writing down the rules doesn’t solve the issue. When does unthinking rudeness cross the line into abuse? Who moderates the moderator? And how much time do we really want to spend policing comments? There’s a sort of “broken windows” policing vibe to moderating. If we leave abusive comments to sit, they create a culture of rudeness: Rudeness begets rudeness. But on public platforms with hundreds of thousands or millions of posts a day, there is a limit to how many comments a human can sift through and take action upon. As a moderator, you’re always outnumbered.

问题是强制执行之一。 大多数站点都有“社区准则”和可接受的行为列表，但是写下规则并不能解决问题。 什么时候不加礼貌的粗鲁行为会导致滥用行为？ 谁主持主持人？ 我们真的想花多少时间来进行警务性评论？ 有一种“破窗”管理气氛 。 如果我们留下侮辱性评论，它们会造就一种无礼的文化：无礼会生出无礼。 但是，在每天有成千上万个帖子的公共平台上，人们可以筛选并采取行动的评论数是有限制的。 作为主持人，您总是人数不多。

This is all assuming you even have the option to moderate. I can delete comments on my Facebook wall, on my Medium stories, and on my Instagram posts. But on Twitter I have no way of removing hurtful messages beyond making an appeal to Twitter themselves. Reporting a tweet feels a bit like asking to speak to the manager to complain about the rowdy kids. On some platforms we invite people to our house, and can ask them to leave; on others it’s more like staying in a hotel, and we have to rely on the staff to step in.

所有这些都假设您甚至可以选择进行审核。 我可以删除Facebook墙上，中型故事和Instagram帖子中的评论。 但是在Twitter上，除了呼吁Twitter本身之外，我无法消除有害消息。 报告推文感觉有点像是要跟经理说话，抱怨吵闹的孩子。 在某些平台上，我们邀请人们进入我们的房子，并可以要求他们离开。 在其他方面，这更像是住在酒店，我们必须依靠工作人员介入。

The more eyes on your work, the more opinions disagree with it.

越关注您的工作，就会有更多不同意见。

And even Twitter’s powers are limited. One of the worst offenders is the president of the United States, and while Twitter has started to gently fact-check his tweets, to delete them would put the company at odds with the government, not to mention a vocal section of the population. Navigating that feels a lot to ask of a company that lets us type out whatever nonsense we’re thinking and that used to put up funny pictures of whales when it crashed.

甚至Twitter的权力都是有限的。 最严重的罪犯之一是美国总统，尽管Twitter已经开始对他的推文进行轻描淡写的事实调查，但删除推文会使公司与政府产生分歧，更不用说人口众多了。 导航对一家公司来说是一个很大的要求，该公司可以让我们输入我们正在考虑的任何废话，并且在鲸鱼坠毁时曾经摆出有趣的鲸鱼照片。

On some platforms it’s possible to turn off comments completely, changing the platform from a two-way, social space into a one-way broadcast. This is helpful on the most polarized of topics, but the internet thrives as a two-way dialogue. Readers comment at the foot of pages, a sort of digital equivalent to writing in the margin of library books. If the platform you’re using even allows this, turning off comments feels self-defeating. The trolls win. And anyway, if there is an interesting conversation to be had about the topic, it will simply move elsewhere: to Hacker News or Twitter or Reddit.

在某些平台上，可以完全关闭评论，将平台从双向社交空间更改为单向广播。 这在两极分化的话题上很有用，但互联网是双向对话的蓬勃发展。 读者在页脚处评论，这是一种数字形式的数字，相当于在图书馆书籍的空白处写作。 如果您正在使用的平台甚至允许这样做，则关闭评论感觉是自欺欺人的。 巨魔获胜。 而且无论如何，如果就该主题进行有趣的对话，它将直接转移到其他地方：Hacker News或Twitter或Reddit。

I wonder whether the issue is definitions. On the subject of “online shaming,” Wikipedia lists four types: callouts, doxing, negative reviews, and revenge porn. But these are completely different. Pointing out someone has made an insensitive comment is different from publishing their home address to put them at risk. When we merge the two into one nebulous term, we create a non-idea.

我想知道问题是否在于定义。 关于“在线羞辱”， 维基百科列出了四种类型 ：标注，催眠，负面评论和复仇色情。 但是这些完全不同。 指出某人发表了不敏感的评论与发布他们的家庭住址使他们处于危险之中是不同的。 当我们将两者合并成一个模糊的术语时，我们创建了一个非思想。

Moderation is a time-consuming, thankless task. In the New Yorker, Anna Wiener followed two moderators, watching them “correspond with individual Hacker News readers over email, coaching and encouraging them in long, heartfelt exchanges.” Reading this, I find myself thinking about the word moderator: one trying to make things less extreme. To be moderate is to be in the middle. Moderators, in fact, are in the middle of things in more ways than one. Looking at moderator Daniel Gackle’s messages, I notice a user arguing with him after he gently moderates a conversation: “Most would agree there’s a point at which moderation goes too far,” the commenter, with the appropriate username “solipsism,” says. I think of this as the Oscar Wilde defense: “Everything in moderation, including moderation.”

适度是一项耗时，不费力的任务。 在《纽约客》中 ，安娜·维纳(Anna Wiener) 跟着两位主持人 ，看着他们“通过电子邮件与Hacker News的个别读者相对应，指导并鼓励他们进行长期而真诚的交流。” 读完这篇文章，我发现自己正在思考主持人一词：一个试图使事情变得不太极端的人。 适度在中间。 主持人，实际上，处于中间的方式不止一种。 在审阅主持人Daniel Gackle的消息时，我注意到一个用户在他缓和对话后与他争论 ：“大多数人都同意，在某种程度上讲，审理太过分了，”评论员说，带有适当的用户名“唯我论”。 我认为这是奥斯卡·王尔德的辩护：“一切适度，包括适度。”

Could it be that ensuring civil discourse is a problem we can’t code our way out of?

难道确保公民话语是我们无法编写出路的问题吗？

You can browse through Gackle’s public responses to trolls and “flame wars” (the term for internet arguments that get progressively ruder and more aggressive). I’m impressed by his civility and the ways he finds to say “please don’t do that.” But I’m also struck by how his site, used by millions of software engineers every day and owned by one of the biggest Silicon Valley venture capitalists in the world, has two people gently and manually guiding conversations. Where is A.I., the algorithms, and machine learning? Could it be that ensuring civil discourse is a problem we can’t code our way out of? Perhaps someone on Hacker News will rudely disagree about this.

您可以浏览Gackle对巨魔和“ 烈火大战”(互联网争论的术语，逐渐变得越来越粗暴和更具侵略性) 的公开回应 。 他的举止和他说“请不要那样做”的方式给我留下了深刻的印象。 但是我也为他的网站(每天有数百万软件工程师使用并且由世界上最大的硅谷风险投资家之一拥有)如何让两个人轻轻地手动引导对话而感到震惊。 AI，算法和机器学习在哪里？ 难道确保公民话语是我们无法编写出路的问题吗？ 也许Hacker News上的某个人会对此表示粗鲁的不同意。

I’m also struck by the limitations of politely refuting points. Last week, 153 scholars and writers signed a letter to Harper’s Magazine, criticizing the “restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society.” “The way to defeat bad ideas,” they said, “is by exposure, argument, and persuasion.” If both sides are playing by the same rules that might work (more often, in fact, it doesn’t), but it feels disingenuous. If the academics who signed this were being shouted at by dozens of people in their lecture hall, they’d ask them to leave.

我也被礼貌地驳斥观点的局限所震惊。 上周，有153位学者和作家在给《 哈珀杂志》 ( Harper's Magazine)的一封信中批评“限制辩论，无论是压制政府还是不容忍的社会”。 他们说：“打败坏主意的方法是通过曝光，争论和说服。” 如果双方都按照可能起作用的相同规则行事( 实际上，更常见的是，行不通 )，但感觉很不诚实。 如果签署此协议的学者在演讲厅被数十个人大喊大叫，他们会要求他们离开。

Technology is a lever for social change. There’s the fictional XKCD-YouTube hack that reads comments aloud before posting them to expose users to their own words. But there are real-world solutions. In the era before Facebook and Twitter, we congregated on forums, powered by software like VBulletin. Developers wrote plugins to add extra capabilities or to help moderate the content. One infamous plugin was called “miserable users,” and rather than banning anti-social users, it was designed to make their experience so bad that they left of their own accord. Of course, this too is a sort of silencing, but it is partial rather than total. A moderate silencing, you could say.

技术是社会变革的杠杆 。 有一个虚构的XKCD -YouTube骇客 ，可以大声朗读评论，然后再发布评论，以使用户使用自己的文字。 但是，有一些实际的解决方案。 在Facebook和Twitter之前的时代，我们聚集在由VBulletin之类的软件支持的论坛上。 开发人员编写了插件来添加额外的功能或帮助审核内容。 一个臭名昭著的插件被称为“ 悲惨的用户 ”，而不是禁止反社会用户，它的设计是使他们的体验如此糟糕，以至于他们自己放弃了。 当然，这也是一种沉默，但这只是部分沉默而不是全部沉默。 您可以说适度的静音。

The reality is that by deleting abusive comments it is moderators who are defending free speech, not those complaining about facing consequences for what they’ve said. The act of moderating is carried out to protect polite discourse. We live in a strangely upside-down world where the people enforcing and protecting free speech are the ones accused of attacking it. Karl Popper called this the paradox of tolerance. “In order to maintain a tolerant society,” he said, “the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”

现实情况是，通过删除辱骂性言论，是主持人捍卫言论自由，而不是抱怨自己的言论会面临后果的人。 进行适度的行为是为了保护礼貌话语。 我们生活在一个奇怪的颠倒世界中，执行和保护言论自由的人被指控攻击言论自由。 卡尔·波普尔(Karl Popper)将此称为宽容悖论。 他说：“为了维持宽容的社会，社会必须不容忍不宽容。”

翻译自: https://onezero.medium.com/what-happens-when-you-delete-the-comments-7fcaac0b3011

删除.svn文件会发生什么