4 ms·

Seems like a sane way to handle brigading. I'm 100% sure /r/blacklivesmatter don't want people who post in /r/the_donald to participate. Freedom of speech does

Seems like a sane way to handle brigading. I'm 100% sure /r/blacklivesmatter don't want people who post in /r/the_donald to participate. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

omanom 6y ago
So a single comment I made multiple years ago that was in criticism of /r/the_donald was actually "brigading" and worthy of a ban across multiple unrelated communities?
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  A ban you can circumvent in 30s mind you (make another account).
  - omanom 6y ago
    That isn't the point, mind you.
jonfw 6y ago
Seems like a sane way to polarize people and build the perception that BLM is a partisan political movement more than a social one.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  Sure, I guess it's pretty political when Donald Trump advocates for racism in spite of anti-racist movements like black lives matter.
  - omanom 6y ago
    To reiterate what you're saying in case you just had a typo or something, you're advocating for blanket censorship regardless of context. Is that correct?
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      Yes absolutely. You do know that this social website uses "blanket censorship regardless of context" right? Shadow bans, rate limiting, etc. I am 100% sure Hacker News has automated tasks for identifying who to shadow ban and rate limit, since I've tested this with multiple accounts and other tools like changing IPs, etc. and also by contacting them for reasoning for their decisions. I think these are perfectly fine and acceptable ways for people to manage their private communities. My only caveat would be that you can't discriminate against protected classes. I would prefer that these rules be transparent, but I think that's a bit of a straw man for this discussion. Managing private communities of tens of thousands of people require some disciplined rules in order for the entity's leaders to achieve their goals.
      - omanom 6y ago
        While I recognize that "private communities" have the ability to moderate and administer their communities whatever way they see fit (and subreddits [at least their initial iterations] certainly fit under this label), I do not agree that blanket censorship without contextual understanding is the right way to do things. >My only caveat would be that you can't discriminate against protected classes How do you define "protected classes", though? Is it your definition? The US Federal Government's? Who gets to make those decisions keeping in mind a niche subreddit (or even a full site like we are on here) will already have a very different demographic than the real world? Not to mention, sorting and censoring people based on a classification that is outside of their control is quite a... controversial way to go about things. >Managing private communities of tens of thousands of people require some disciplined rules in order for the entity's leaders to achieve their goals. Establishing, enforcing, and maintaining "disciplined rules" should not, and do not need to, mean "shadow bans, rate limiting, etc". Certainly not without a human element capable of contextual analysis, at least. -- I disagree with you, but respect for explaining your beliefs.
        bluntfang 6y ago
        >I do not agree that blanket censorship without contextual understanding is the right way to do things. I don't agree with it either, but it's impossible to do this at scale without hiring a large number, relative to community size, to be full time paid moderators. We have to accept the reality that these free communities need automation in order to maintain order, or else they would cost lots of money. >How do you define "protected classes", though? This is a straw man and I'm not going to address it. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  BLM is advocating for fundamental change to the nature of law enforcement and incarceration, the very apparatus of state power. Anyone who thinks this could possibly be apolitical is blind to what politics is.

Seems like a sane way to handle brigading. I'm 100% sure /r/blacklivesmatter don't want people who post in /r/the_donald to participate. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

omanom 6y ago

So a single comment I made multiple years ago that was in criticism of /r/the_donald was actually "brigading" and worthy of a ban across multiple unrelated communities?

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
A ban you can circumvent in 30s mind you (make another account).
- omanom 6y ago
  That isn't the point, mind you.

jonfw 6y ago

Seems like a sane way to polarize people and build the perception that BLM is a partisan political movement more than a social one.

bluntfang 6y ago
Sure, I guess it's pretty political when Donald Trump advocates for racism in spite of anti-racist movements like black lives matter.
- omanom 6y ago
  To reiterate what you're saying in case you just had a typo or something, you're advocating for blanket censorship regardless of context. Is that correct?
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    Yes absolutely. You do know that this social website uses "blanket censorship regardless of context" right? Shadow bans, rate limiting, etc. I am 100% sure Hacker News has automated tasks for identifying who to shadow ban and rate limit, since I've tested this with multiple accounts and other tools like changing IPs, etc. and also by contacting them for reasoning for their decisions. I think these are perfectly fine and acceptable ways for people to manage their private communities. My only caveat would be that you can't discriminate against protected classes. I would prefer that these rules be transparent, but I think that's a bit of a straw man for this discussion. Managing private communities of tens of thousands of people require some disciplined rules in order for the entity's leaders to achieve their goals.
    - omanom 6y ago
      While I recognize that "private communities" have the ability to moderate and administer their communities whatever way they see fit (and subreddits [at least their initial iterations] certainly fit under this label), I do not agree that blanket censorship without contextual understanding is the right way to do things. >My only caveat would be that you can't discriminate against protected classes How do you define "protected classes", though? Is it your definition? The US Federal Government's? Who gets to make those decisions keeping in mind a niche subreddit (or even a full site like we are on here) will already have a very different demographic than the real world? Not to mention, sorting and censoring people based on a classification that is outside of their control is quite a... controversial way to go about things. >Managing private communities of tens of thousands of people require some disciplined rules in order for the entity's leaders to achieve their goals. Establishing, enforcing, and maintaining "disciplined rules" should not, and do not need to, mean "shadow bans, rate limiting, etc". Certainly not without a human element capable of contextual analysis, at least. -- I disagree with you, but respect for explaining your beliefs.
      - bluntfang 6y ago
        >I do not agree that blanket censorship without contextual understanding is the right way to do things. I don't agree with it either, but it's impossible to do this at scale without hiring a large number, relative to community size, to be full time paid moderators. We have to accept the reality that these free communities need automation in order to maintain order, or else they would cost lots of money. >How do you define "protected classes", though? This is a straw man and I'm not going to address it. You know exactly what I'm talking about.
freeone3000 6y ago
BLM is advocating for fundamental change to the nature of law enforcement and incarceration, the very apparatus of state power. Anyone who thinks this could possibly be apolitical is blind to what politics is.