4 ms·

Most effective online communities, whether ivory towers or toxic cesspools, are tirelessly built on the effort and guile of volunteer moderators. I don't think

Most effective online communities, whether ivory towers or toxic cesspools, are tirelessly built on the effort and guile of volunteer moderators. I don't think the average poster realizes the power to sculpt a consensus that can come from bans, post removals, and pinned posts. Still, their ability to "round up" is trounced by the automation of the social media platform. It would be like one of those early "American associations" that Tocqueville observed being dependent on an venue whose owner insisted that they spend more time on obnoxious issues because "it brought in a crowd". The article discusses a "more enlightened algorithm", but it isn't in Facebook's interest to give up its power to community moderators. I am still convinced that humanity is "building a collective immunity" to this kind of toxicity, but this will be a slow, possibly painful process. Right now, it seems the only immediate way people can resist is to acknowledge the importance of connection "off screens" and do their best to keep those other associations - family, friendships, local groups, etc. - active and engaged.

skissane 6y ago
> Most effective online communities, whether ivory towers or toxic cesspools, are tirelessly built on the effort and guile of volunteer moderators. I don't think the average poster realizes the power to sculpt a consensus that can come from bans, post removals, and pinned posts. I think many online communities, moderation serves only to reinforce the groupthink. (I'm not saying that's true of this community, but this site may very much be the exception rather than the rule.) /r/TheDonald was moderated – if you posted something critical of Donald Trump, they'd remove it and ban you.
zozbot234 6y ago
> Right now, it seems the only immediate way people can resist is to acknowledge the importance of connection "off screens" and do their best to keep those other associations - family, friendships, local groups, etc. - active and engaged. I agree somewhat, but the connection doesn't have to literally be "off screen", only "off of major, centrally controlled social platforms". Smaller sites are generally managed on a voluntary base and thus less scalable than a centralized network would be, but they do allow for meaningful connections that are not constrained by the need for physical proximity.

skissane 6y ago

> Most effective online communities, whether ivory towers or toxic cesspools, are tirelessly built on the effort and guile of volunteer moderators. I don't think the average poster realizes the power to sculpt a consensus that can come from bans, post removals, and pinned posts. I think many online communities, moderation serves only to reinforce the groupthink. (I'm not saying that's true of this community, but this site may very much be the exception rather than the rule.) /r/TheDonald was moderated – if you posted something critical of Donald Trump, they'd remove it and ban you.

zozbot234 6y ago

> Right now, it seems the only immediate way people can resist is to acknowledge the importance of connection "off screens" and do their best to keep those other associations - family, friendships, local groups, etc. - active and engaged. I agree somewhat, but the connection doesn't have to literally be "off screen", only "off of major, centrally controlled social platforms". Smaller sites are generally managed on a voluntary base and thus less scalable than a centralized network would be, but they do allow for meaningful connections that are not constrained by the need for physical proximity.