Fairly competent article, but it gets bogged down in the Anita Sarkeesian&#x2F;GG&#x2F;my face is a pedophile thing. The article could have flowed better if written with the rules for &quot;designing for evil&quot; first and then presenting Sarkeesian as a case study as to why the rules are relevant.<p>Your strategies for mitigating &quot;evil&quot; can be very effective, and on the whole they look very good. It&#x27;s worth noting to be careful with concepts like shadowbanning and limiting features as they can disenfranchise your userbase (especially the downright Orwellian &quot;If a new user joins your site and then their first several actions are to browse exclusively female profiles...&quot;). The designer must be careful to avoid implementing authoritarianism.<p>And I feel I must provide a counterpoint. 4chan has been one of the most creative places on the Internet. Although people are harsh and obtuse, these were often just the appearances they give themselves (considered by most to be a defense mechanism). Furthermore, they have an lgbt board and plenty of women visit the site.[1] The culture and togetherness promoted by the anonymity and freedom of speech are also a powerful force. Not all of your users are evil, not even close; so why must you presume the worst?<p>The author provides a fairly decent (although somewhat incomplete) guide to designing social systems to allow users to defend themselves. The guide is there, although the reader must avoid the ranting to learn anything of consequence. 7&#x2F;10, it wasn&#x27;t a waste of time.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tenaflyviper.tumblr.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;91205424710&#x2F;pokemoneggs-people-are-like-lolol-4chan-vs" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tenaflyviper.tumblr.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;91205424710&#x2F;pokemoneggs-...</a>