4 ms·

I disagree. Saying "this is off-topic/derailing" whether or not it's genuine is the only preventative measure. You can say "this is whataboutism, ask this elsew

I disagree. Saying "this is off-topic/derailing" whether or not it's genuine is the only preventative measure. You can say "this is whataboutism, ask this elsewhere" and still engage with OP as if they were acting in good faith.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Yes. The trick is to identify what something looks like and then assume positive intent and carry on -- as I did in my post. For the record, I shared several Obama/data stories with friends, specifically mentioning how this was the sign of a really bad thing. (Not the details of what they did, the concept of using deep personal data and friend networks as a way to monitor and persuade voters.) I am especially concerned that the public can't seem to focus on this problem unless there are clearly set up good guys, bad guys, and some kind of simplistic emotionally-manipulative narrative. So, for instance, the current narrative is foreign powers using FB in a way most users never expected to (perhaps) deeply influence a U.S. election. For many news consumers, that's got a bunch of cartoon figures acting almost like villains in a movie. Much more concerning to me is the fact that data, once collected, can go and do anything. Being too much for any one person to understand, we rely on programming to do things with it. In effect, we are creating systems that we ourselves do not understand. So how could we understand the downstream effects? For every Hollywood Standard Movie Plot news story, how many other bad downstream effects are happening that we don't know and might never figure out? I know this sounds a little bit like arguing from ignorance, but my point is that these are systems about which we cannot reason. So Zuckerberg may have a noble cause and be on a mission to connect the world so that it can be a better place. In the process the things he created could end up killing millions. And it might be a hundred years before we figure it out, if ever. (Likewise, he may actually cause more good than harm in the world -- and 20 years from now somebody steals the data and uses it to start a war killing tens of millions. Is that Zuckerberg's fault? With something like, it's not simply a matter of "stealing". If I were creating and collecting H-bombs in my basement and somebody broke in, the crime involved is not simply "theft". Something much worse is going on.)
Natsu 9y ago
I've never once seen it help and I've moderated forums since the 90s. People used to put up FAQs and just link those. Now it's like the direction of the conversation is supposed to be decided before even talking and there's no concept of dialog or discussion which is where all of the interactions that were interesting to me happened.
- zaksoup 9y ago
  Do you think it's meaningfully different when the discussion is under active attack by bad actors? How do you moderate to keep genuine propaganda techniques from successfully working on your discussion without calling them out? I'm asking because I think your point is really good: it sucks that we can't follow the directions of a conversation organically, and I find it a bummer that I'm personally advocating for tactics that will reduce that organic development. So what are the techniques moderators and good-faith participants can apply, in your experience?
  - Natsu 9y ago
    > Do you think it's meaningfully different when the discussion is under active attack by bad actors? I defend my positions instead of attacking people based on largely unproveable accusations. Sure, there really are a lot of bots/shills/etc. but the times you get that wrong hurt people and turn them away. > How do you moderate to keep genuine propaganda techniques from successfully working on your discussion without calling them out? By defeating the argument instead of the person. The shill type never engages in real conversation, anyhow, in general. They're like pellicans--fly in, crap over things, fly out. > So what are the techniques moderators and good-faith participants can apply, in your experience? Smaller communities where you can actually recognize posters over time. Being able to give elevator pitch style summaries of points I want to make without having to resort to copypasta of 800 links the other person will never actually read and maybe brief FAQs if something just comes up too often. But another part of it is to try to engage the other person, to converse with them. I'm not just here to say "accept everything I tell you or leave the forum!" but I'll actually engage with and try to understand the other person's point. I'm not perfect, there are things I can learn. I have a friend who is dyslexic, but loves to argue. A lot of people treat him like he's some idiot troll even though he's highly educated because he can't spell to save his life. He has interesting ideas that are worthy of thought and constant frustration communicating them. These days people are like "you're a troll!" and won't even talk any more. But sometimes the conversations that go off the rails actually venture into interesting territory. But maybe I'm just weird because I can type really fast and compose something like this post in just a few minutes. I do think that might help a bit too, because I can rattle off words on the keyboard just about as fast as I can talk so it's not so bad to explain something for the 27th time in an hour. Anyhow, thank you for listening.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

Yes. The trick is to identify what something looks like and then assume positive intent and carry on -- as I did in my post. For the record, I shared several Obama/data stories with friends, specifically mentioning how this was the sign of a really bad thing. (Not the details of what they did, the concept of using deep personal data and friend networks as a way to monitor and persuade voters.) I am especially concerned that the public can't seem to focus on this problem unless there are clearly set up good guys, bad guys, and some kind of simplistic emotionally-manipulative narrative. So, for instance, the current narrative is foreign powers using FB in a way most users never expected to (perhaps) deeply influence a U.S. election. For many news consumers, that's got a bunch of cartoon figures acting almost like villains in a movie. Much more concerning to me is the fact that data, once collected, can go and do anything. Being too much for any one person to understand, we rely on programming to do things with it. In effect, we are creating systems that we ourselves do not understand. So how could we understand the downstream effects? For every Hollywood Standard Movie Plot news story, how many other bad downstream effects are happening that we don't know and might never figure out? I know this sounds a little bit like arguing from ignorance, but my point is that these are systems about which we cannot reason. So Zuckerberg may have a noble cause and be on a mission to connect the world so that it can be a better place. In the process the things he created could end up killing millions. And it might be a hundred years before we figure it out, if ever. (Likewise, he may actually cause more good than harm in the world -- and 20 years from now somebody steals the data and uses it to start a war killing tens of millions. Is that Zuckerberg's fault? With something like, it's not simply a matter of "stealing". If I were creating and collecting H-bombs in my basement and somebody broke in, the crime involved is not simply "theft". Something much worse is going on.)

Natsu 9y ago

I've never once seen it help and I've moderated forums since the 90s. People used to put up FAQs and just link those. Now it's like the direction of the conversation is supposed to be decided before even talking and there's no concept of dialog or discussion which is where all of the interactions that were interesting to me happened.

zaksoup 9y ago
Do you think it's meaningfully different when the discussion is under active attack by bad actors? How do you moderate to keep genuine propaganda techniques from successfully working on your discussion without calling them out? I'm asking because I think your point is really good: it sucks that we can't follow the directions of a conversation organically, and I find it a bummer that I'm personally advocating for tactics that will reduce that organic development. So what are the techniques moderators and good-faith participants can apply, in your experience?
- Natsu 9y ago
  > Do you think it's meaningfully different when the discussion is under active attack by bad actors? I defend my positions instead of attacking people based on largely unproveable accusations. Sure, there really are a lot of bots/shills/etc. but the times you get that wrong hurt people and turn them away. > How do you moderate to keep genuine propaganda techniques from successfully working on your discussion without calling them out? By defeating the argument instead of the person. The shill type never engages in real conversation, anyhow, in general. They're like pellicans--fly in, crap over things, fly out. > So what are the techniques moderators and good-faith participants can apply, in your experience? Smaller communities where you can actually recognize posters over time. Being able to give elevator pitch style summaries of points I want to make without having to resort to copypasta of 800 links the other person will never actually read and maybe brief FAQs if something just comes up too often. But another part of it is to try to engage the other person, to converse with them. I'm not just here to say "accept everything I tell you or leave the forum!" but I'll actually engage with and try to understand the other person's point. I'm not perfect, there are things I can learn. I have a friend who is dyslexic, but loves to argue. A lot of people treat him like he's some idiot troll even though he's highly educated because he can't spell to save his life. He has interesting ideas that are worthy of thought and constant frustration communicating them. These days people are like "you're a troll!" and won't even talk any more. But sometimes the conversations that go off the rails actually venture into interesting territory. But maybe I'm just weird because I can type really fast and compose something like this post in just a few minutes. I do think that might help a bit too, because I can rattle off words on the keyboard just about as fast as I can talk so it's not so bad to explain something for the 27th time in an hour. Anyhow, thank you for listening.