8 ms·

I live and breathe on the internet and have never been moderated once, even freely expressing myself, insulting people who deserve it, etc. My point here is th

I live and breathe on the internet and have never been moderated once, even freely expressing myself, insulting people who deserve it, etc. My point here is that if you think the current social media options have "heavy handed" moderation, you're probably the problem, not them.

762236 6y ago
You're probably being downvoted for your comment. Does that make you the problem?
javajosh 6y ago
I was recently moderated for the first time in my (fairly long) life by a social media site. I complained, and they restored it, but it was jarring. My general impression is that times they are a'changin' WRT moderation on the interwebs.
- bigiain 6y ago
  The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory holds up very strongly under observation: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Small communities can sometimes survive without too much moderation, where the consequences of being shunned are enough to keep people who want to participate mostly civil to each other. But "success" in terms of rapid user base growth inevitably leads to enough members who are prepared to be uncivil to each other, at which stage the members who desire a civil discourse to either demand moderation or to leave it to become a youtube-comments style cesspit. It's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. Technology just amplifies the problem enormously, it doesn't _cause_ it. Jerks don't last long at small local bars, because the locals set the tone and shun people who don't behave according to local norms. Large beer barns, concert venues, or festivals largely cannot rely on local norms and custom, or for regulars to guide newcomers to understanding and appropriate behaviour. And there will _always_ be some people who are jerks, or who's personal understanding of acceptable behaviour differs from the group norm. In the real world they hopefully find "their people" and their places. People who want to behave like outlaw bikers hang out in biker bars, not piano jazz clubs. If you want to build a social media site, you need to realise that eventually someone from 4chan who's idea of fun is trolling normies is gonna show up, and if the place looks "fun" to him, he can put out a call to hundreds of his friends to come show up too. You need to have a plan to deal with that before it happens, if you have a vision for your site that isn't /b/ To some people, that's gonna look like "overly heavy moderation" even if you do it right.
kortilla 6y ago
That just means your views are not very controversial (most people’s aren’t). The argument you’re making is just a different face of the “I have nothing to hide” in the privacy debates.
- labster 6y ago
  I have controversial views (the EM Drive works! Sport is the opiate of the masses!) but I seem to get along just fine on social media. It’s really only the people who have boring, discredited political views who have problems.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    > I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
    - aerovistae 6y ago
      I'm already upset.
    - nindalf 6y ago
      > originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
      - visiblink 6y ago
        Only for the purpose of giving additional political representation to southern white men. Otherwise, they weren't people at all.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling. Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system. Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.
idclip 6y ago
Not an SJW here, actually a political minority here ... i see a moderate amount of moderation and banning pf groups where i hang. Sure its not china but we are not using that asa standard .. and mate thats a ton of shaming in your tone .. please consider showing some compassion. I fail to see how his comment provoked yours ..
- lovegoblin 6y ago
  > SJW Hah people still use this term unironically?
  - idclip 6y ago
    Theres a bit of lag In non english speaking spheres =}
  - wtf_is_up 6y ago
    t. SJW
  - leshenka 6y ago
    More often than ever
sillysaurusx 6y ago
Your assumption is that the moderator is fair. This is often not the case.
skinkestek 6y ago
Try to point out something correct but moderately controversial. I think I've been modded for: - trying to get people to hate less on Russians - on the other hand, in the same forum: trying to tell some over eager people that no, Russians aren't saints and it isn't all NATOs fault. - pointing out (as an insider that was supposedly one of the victims in a major news story recently) that the "facts" didn't check out at all.
- Yizahi 6y ago
  I fully agree, we shouldn't hate Russians, they only wish to expand their lebensraum as it is their birthright. We shouldn't blame them for doing the right thing.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    I stand for what I wrote: We shouldn't hate Russian citizens. On the other hand we should be extremely careful when their military are "helpfully" supporting "oppressed" Russian minorities in Ukraine etc etc.
    - Yizahi 6y ago
      Russian civilians can be asked a few easy questions, like - what happened in February 2014, or what happened in August 2008, or what is administrative status of Crimea. And this answer will help you understand should they be hated or not. Most of them, even highly educated citizens living in a capital, even those who hate their so called "president" and asking for reform, they still approve russian invasions and occupation of territories. Basically the "Empire" part is just fine, they only wish to be left alone personally.
  - leshenka 6y ago
    where did you read this, I wonder
rriepe 6y ago
Can anyone understand this sheep's baas?
logicalmonster 6y ago
Maybe you don’t have any out of the box ideas that goes against the ideals of corporate America, but I’m certainly glad that other people do. Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time. * Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it. Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country? * Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed that paying taxes to Britain is good and beneficial to the Colonies. Many good ideas shatter the existing “consensus” dramatically. I’m glad that boundaries can and do get pushed because that’s how we come up with better ideas and systems.
- 495636483 6y ago
  That's an immature picture you are drawing there. You pretty much always trust some authority with what's a fact and what's not and twitter isn't taking that away from you. Have you verified every evidence yourself, for the things you take as premises?! I doubt it. So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright. (1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence? (2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too? (3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win? (4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?
djsumdog 6y ago
You may just have Orthodoxy privilege: http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html or in other words, if you've never had and issues with moderation, you might not ever take risks or challenges with your opinions.

762236 6y ago

You're probably being downvoted for your comment. Does that make you the problem?

javajosh 6y ago

I was recently moderated for the first time in my (fairly long) life by a social media site. I complained, and they restored it, but it was jarring. My general impression is that times they are a'changin' WRT moderation on the interwebs.

bigiain 6y ago
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory holds up very strongly under observation: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Small communities can sometimes survive without too much moderation, where the consequences of being shunned are enough to keep people who want to participate mostly civil to each other. But "success" in terms of rapid user base growth inevitably leads to enough members who are prepared to be uncivil to each other, at which stage the members who desire a civil discourse to either demand moderation or to leave it to become a youtube-comments style cesspit. It's not a technical problem, it's a people problem. Technology just amplifies the problem enormously, it doesn't _cause_ it. Jerks don't last long at small local bars, because the locals set the tone and shun people who don't behave according to local norms. Large beer barns, concert venues, or festivals largely cannot rely on local norms and custom, or for regulars to guide newcomers to understanding and appropriate behaviour. And there will _always_ be some people who are jerks, or who's personal understanding of acceptable behaviour differs from the group norm. In the real world they hopefully find "their people" and their places. People who want to behave like outlaw bikers hang out in biker bars, not piano jazz clubs. If you want to build a social media site, you need to realise that eventually someone from 4chan who's idea of fun is trolling normies is gonna show up, and if the place looks "fun" to him, he can put out a call to hundreds of his friends to come show up too. You need to have a plan to deal with that before it happens, if you have a vision for your site that isn't /b/ To some people, that's gonna look like "overly heavy moderation" even if you do it right.

kortilla 6y ago

That just means your views are not very controversial (most people’s aren’t). The argument you’re making is just a different face of the “I have nothing to hide” in the privacy debates.

labster 6y ago
I have controversial views (the EM Drive works! Sport is the opiate of the masses!) but I seem to get along just fine on social media. It’s really only the people who have boring, discredited political views who have problems.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
  - aerovistae 6y ago
    I'm already upset.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    > originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
    - visiblink 6y ago
      Only for the purpose of giving additional political representation to southern white men. Otherwise, they weren't people at all.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling. Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system. Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.

idclip 6y ago

Not an SJW here, actually a political minority here ... i see a moderate amount of moderation and banning pf groups where i hang. Sure its not china but we are not using that asa standard .. and mate thats a ton of shaming in your tone .. please consider showing some compassion. I fail to see how his comment provoked yours ..

lovegoblin 6y ago
> SJW Hah people still use this term unironically?
- idclip 6y ago
  Theres a bit of lag In non english speaking spheres =}
- wtf_is_up 6y ago
  t. SJW
- leshenka 6y ago
  More often than ever

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Your assumption is that the moderator is fair. This is often not the case.

skinkestek 6y ago

Try to point out something correct but moderately controversial. I think I've been modded for: - trying to get people to hate less on Russians - on the other hand, in the same forum: trying to tell some over eager people that no, Russians aren't saints and it isn't all NATOs fault. - pointing out (as an insider that was supposedly one of the victims in a major news story recently) that the "facts" didn't check out at all.

Yizahi 6y ago
I fully agree, we shouldn't hate Russians, they only wish to expand their lebensraum as it is their birthright. We shouldn't blame them for doing the right thing.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  I stand for what I wrote: We shouldn't hate Russian citizens. On the other hand we should be extremely careful when their military are "helpfully" supporting "oppressed" Russian minorities in Ukraine etc etc.
  - Yizahi 6y ago
    Russian civilians can be asked a few easy questions, like - what happened in February 2014, or what happened in August 2008, or what is administrative status of Crimea. And this answer will help you understand should they be hated or not. Most of them, even highly educated citizens living in a capital, even those who hate their so called "president" and asking for reform, they still approve russian invasions and occupation of territories. Basically the "Empire" part is just fine, they only wish to be left alone personally.
- leshenka 6y ago
  where did you read this, I wonder

rriepe 6y ago

Can anyone understand this sheep's baas?

logicalmonster 6y ago

Maybe you don’t have any out of the box ideas that goes against the ideals of corporate America, but I’m certainly glad that other people do. Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time. * Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it. Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country? * Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed that paying taxes to Britain is good and beneficial to the Colonies. Many good ideas shatter the existing “consensus” dramatically. I’m glad that boundaries can and do get pushed because that’s how we come up with better ideas and systems.

495636483 6y ago
That's an immature picture you are drawing there. You pretty much always trust some authority with what's a fact and what's not and twitter isn't taking that away from you. Have you verified every evidence yourself, for the things you take as premises?! I doubt it. So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright. (1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence? (2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too? (3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win? (4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?

djsumdog 6y ago

You may just have Orthodoxy privilege: http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html or in other words, if you've never had and issues with moderation, you might not ever take risks or challenges with your opinions.