6 ms·
When does moderation become censorship?
- green_lunch 10y agoIt becomes censorship when a moderator removes a comment or discussion based purely on personal beliefs and disagreements. Moderation should be about removing the trolls, not what it has become, which is censorship. It feels like many people personally enjoy moderating down disagreements because they don't get any actual power in their own lives. It's one of the reasons I stay away from most online discussions these days: because nobody can be open and honest. It really makes me wonder if this is the reason why secret groups like the masons were created. Back in those days, instead of getting moderating down, you were killed or attacked.
- droithomme 10y ago"Moderation should be about removing the trolls" True, but some argue that those who support Trump, or who are against gender identity equality, are trolls.
- gozur88 10y agoThat's the problem in a nutshell. About 95% of the people out there think the definition of "troll" is "someone who disagrees with me", and I don't see how you ever really get away from a subjective determination.
- trowawee 10y agoBecause it's a fundamentally subjective evaluation. There is no way to objectively define "trolling".
- markdown 10y ago> There is no way to objectively define "trolling". Oh it's been very objectively defined. Knowing when someone is trolling, or when they legitimately believe what they're saying is the problem.
- trowawee 10y agoSo...it's defined, but it's impossible to know whether it's happening unless the person specifically tells you they're trolling? That sorta seems like a flawed definition.
- ythl 10y ago> or who are against gender identity equality "Anyone who doesn't agree with my ultra progressive views that people should be able to define their own gender identity is a hateful bigot and needs to be silenced"
- trowawee 10y agoAwww, sad lil' hater.
- lotsoflumens 10y ago... immediately.
- scrollaway 10y agoA user-driven upvote/downvote system is a form of decentralized moderation. Do you also believe that if a post is being downvoted, it's censorship? Do you believe that upvotes are a tool of censorship? They can be, of course. Censorship is not just deletions/removal. You can censor something by hiding it, drowning it out, discrediting the author, etc. Now keep all that in mind before giving a one-word response to a very complex question.
- esbranson 10y agoThe article uses moderation in a sense apart from an upvote/downvote system. Your argument is premised on a upvote/downvote system being moderation. How exactly does it moderate? If it merely reorders and doesn't remove, then this is not moderation in the context at hand. Therefore your argument is invalid. (Your argument is really just orthogonal, premised on different assumptions.)
- scrollaway 10y agoThe point I was trying to make was that you can't just say "immediately" and get away with it. And upvotes/downvote don't necessarily have to merely reorder. On many websites, large counts of downvote automatically hide and sometimes delete the post in question.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- lotsoflumens 10y agoSorry about the delay in responding ... I don't consider upvotes/downvotes by themselves to be moderation or censorship. That's just non-verbal communication. However, when an upvote or downvote system hides a post or promotes a post, then it's censorship, because promoting a post necessarily hides some other post.
- Pengwin 10y agoMy idea of moderation is: 1. Outline rules for a community, make them clear and understandable 2. Enforce those, and only those, rules. 3. If something objectionable happens, and the rules don't cover them but you think they should, then change the rules to how you see fit. 4. Handle the fallout of the rules changing. Steps 3 and 4 are where things mostly fall apart in communities. Personally, any time something happens which leads me to change rules for something, it's reactive and is the voice of the majority of people (not the loudest, the majority). Most people are happy that way. Disagreement is never a rule I'd have. I'd only make sure that people either have the tools to self-censor what they don't want to see, or tell them they might be happier going elsewhere.
- esbranson 10y ago> Outline rules ... clear and understandable There are many discussions about rules being either clear or understandable, but usually not both. > Enforce... Oh. We "just" enforce it? You sure this mechanism will be both clear and understandable, and be enforced as intended? > change the rules Change the rules, in reaction to specific instances, while keeping them clear and understandable? This is why they're usually neither both clear and understandable and enforceable. > Steps 3 and 4 are where things mostly fall apart in communities. There is no community where this idea of moderation could hold true.
- Pengwin 10y agoReally? It seems as though that is how most online communities try to follow this logic. I fully get that 'clear' and 'understandable' are very subjective, though.
- trowawee 10y agoBasically never, at least on the internet? No one owes anyone else a soapbox. My space, my rules. There's nothing stopping anyone from rolling up a site and saying whatever they want to say, but there's absolutely no reason I have to give space on my site, no matter what my site is, for anyone else's viewpoint.
- deathhand 10y agoUnless net neutrality takes over.
- yoo1I 10y agoThat is not what net neutrality means.
- hackney 10y agoYou are contradicting yourself, and did not even answer the question. What you should have said was "as the site owner and moderator, whenever I damn well please". But instead you said it never happens. I have almost zero sites I login to for a reason. I would think that as soon as a website becomes embroiled in taking a political viewpoint to the extreme of not allowing the opposite side to speak is when censorship comes into play. If we are talking individual attacks obviously that would and should fall into the moderation category.
- exolymph 10y agoI think what trowawee meant is that they never equate deleting comments (or whatever) with censorship. It sounds like you do. This is a semantic conflict re: what "censorship" means, precisely. Personally, I think that deleting someone's comments is censorship, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Censorship gets a bad rap, but purging certain viewpoints from a certain venue is not inherently evil or negative. For example, Hacker News does it with the shadowbanning system. I don't mind because dang is a thoughtful moderator.
- 10y ago
- JakeAl 10y agoIf Disqus would simply design their software so it allows users to filter/block whichever users they don't want to see no one would need to be censored or moderated. All the trolls, paid or not, would vanish from a user's view and it would be up to the user whose messages they see. Problem solved.
- esbranson 10y agoA moderator --is-- a censor.
- exolymph 10y agoYes. Agreed. They're different terms for the same thing, with different cultural connotations.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoBasically what I came to say. daurnimator said it better, though.
- daurnimator 10y agoModeration vs censorship reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#Canonical_example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#Canonical_exampl...
- CookieMon 10y agoI've seen so many moral-handwringers try to justify silencing people by trotting out that XKCD comic as though they were "the community" that Cueball weirdly stopped feeling like a positive hacker character for me - half the time I encounter him now it's as some apologist for "I know best" assholery. The "Moral Majority" all over again. In my experience it's hardly ever been the community showing someone the door, it's always a corporation getting cold feet over potential controversy, or some narrow-minded zealot abusing their janitorial moderator powers. Last time this happened it was the community that overwhelmingly wanted to show the zealot the door (a vote happened while the mod was away), but they couldn't - they were nice normal people and not the kind of weasels who dedicate hours of janitorial work for the chance of having veto power over others in an internet forum. Moderation and censorship can be separated - readers can be given the option to circumvent the moderation when/if they choose, or they can have the option to "unsubscribe" from the actions of moderators they disagree with. To create genuine public spaces we are going to have to find a way that doesn't assume uncorruptible integrity of moderators (the role attracts weasels). Private websites can certainly behave however they want, but they are currently standing in for our public spaces - and presenting themselves as such, which means we have none.
- andrewflnr 10y ago...or they can have the option to "unsubscribe" from the actions of moderators they disagree with This is a really interesting idea. Another would be to make moderation opt-in, e.g. you select the curated filters you want to apply to forum X based on their reputation for fairness and pleasantness. These might in fact be the personal filter settings of upstanding members, or a vote between a few such members. Anyway, thanks for the yummy food for thought.
- dredmorbius 10y agoAs others have noted, moderation is censorship, at least by action. Neither however fall under the legal protections of free speech, which don't apply. The first question is: what is a given community for, and how should it accomplish those goals? Individual moderation, collaborative filtering, individual killfiles, expert ratings systems, etc., are all tools toward these ends. They're non-trivial. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28jfk4/content_rating_moderation_and_ranking_systems/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28jfk4/content... Community behavior is very strongly dependent on BOTH scale AND founder cohorts. A group with one person (blog, winking in the dark) is different from one with two, or a small set of people engaged in discussion (say 3-30), or a larger group discussing common topics (say 30-100), etc. Part of this can be thought of as a cost function in which the positive contribution of members falls with scale, while the cost of each additional participant is rather more constant. Eventually, adding more participants makes the experience worse for all. It's really difficult for any one conversation to have more than a few key participants. Two and a moderator, or perhaps 5-6 participants who know each other well and get along. If you're trying to arrive at some truth or understanding, it's really difficult not to have a truth-based moderation criterion. Individual killfiles are somewhat useful, except that the killfilee tends to see a great many one-sided discussions (others interacting with those they've filtered). Unless the system blots out both sides, this accomplishes little. I've started looking more at discussion tools which foster both smaller and larger groups. "Warrens" and "plazas". The idea of creating persistent communities well below Dunbar's number (say 50-300 people) and promoting up material from those has some appeal (you'd also want to allow for lateral movement of individuals). A small set of tiers would easily accomodate the entire global population. (And yes, there's a social network set up on this basis though the name escapes me.) A huge problem with allowing noisy participants is that they draw the oxygen out of the room, and tend to very strongly discourage high-quality particpants. There's a curiously persistent asymmetry between an individual's proclivity to participate in a group discussion and the interest in others in their doing so. Good designs balance this mismatch.
- paulddraper 10y agoModeration: the action of making something less extreme, intense, or violent Censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts Moderation is censorship. To say otherwise is to make a distinction without a difference. Rephrase your question to have meaning. Perhaps "When is censorship justifiable?"
- dragonwriter 10y agoModeration is always censorship. But censorship isn't always problematic. Government censorship, or censorship by an entity that has effectively the same kind of broad control over media of communication is problematic.
- CookieMon 10y agoAnd Hacker News deletes it, <sigh>
- esbranson 10y agoEpic Edit: I don't think this item has been deleted, it apparently was flagged and has been "moderated" automatically without human intervention?
- CookieMon 10y agoSounds plausible - abusing the flag/report system seems to be common with groups who like to act as self-appointed censors. How did you tell the difference? (or suspect the difference)