4 ms·

> I will be deleting whatever I feel are tendentious comments meant to keep the coronavirus arguments going I think it would be better if this post included so

> I will be deleting whatever I feel are tendentious comments meant to keep the coronavirus arguments going I think it would be better if this post included some guidelines about what constitutes acceptable vs. unacceptable content. I don't doubt that he is dealing with a lot of trolls/non-scientific nonsense, and I understand that he is well within his rights to delete anything he wants, but "whatever I feel are tendentious comments meant to keep the coronavirus arguments going" comes across as a bit too subjective for my tastes and would undermine my confidence in a forum. Note I don't participate in the comments on that site, so this doesn't impact me personally at all. I just feel like if you need to implement censorship, you should try to keep it as objective as possible.

andrewflnr 5y ago
You might have a point for an actual "forum", but this is his personal blog, and comments exist at all there at his personal pleasure. Your confidence in it doesn't matter, nor does any other reader's. The only consequence to someone "losing confidence" in his personal moderation style is that they don't comment anymore, which is fine at worst, more likely exactly the goal. Further, objectivity is impossible in moderation. There are no shortcuts, some judgment is always required or your "objective" rules will be gamed to death. Acknowledging the subjectivity is exactly the right approach. I think this is the future of "forums" as well. Moderation depends on trust, so we'll be more explicit about who we're trusting, and just roll with it. Best case we get multiple moderation perspectives on a decentralized discussion mechanism. But if we just get used to the idea that forums are shaped by the personalities of their moderators, that's probably an improvement.
- freetime2 5y ago
  > this is his personal blog, and comments exist at all there at his personal pleasure. Your confidence in it doesn't matter, nor does any other reader's. This is a fairly nihilistic take. Lots of people do things for greater purpose than "personal pleasure". I don't know if this particular blogger cares about earning peoples' confidence or not - but I do think it's something that many bloggers/moderators care deeply about. > Further, objectivity is impossible in moderation. Absolute objectivity may be an impossible ideal, but I don't think that means we should completely give up on objectivity. Look at the US legal system - which aims to bring as much fairness and objectivity as possible to the extremely subjective process of criminal justice. A written code of laws, trial by peers, appeals system, etc. It's very far from ideal, and yet worlds better than if we just gave up completely and said "objectivity is impossible", and let the judge issue whatever verdict and sentence at whim. We see analogs of these checks and balances on popular forums, such as upvotes/downvotes (trial by peers) and community guidelines (written code of laws). To be clear I am not suggesting every blogger should go and try to replicate all of the checks and balances of the US legal system to moderate their blogs. But I do think that something as simple as posting a set of guidelines, and referring back to them regularly when people step out of line, can be a good way to set the tone for a community. Something similar to the HN guidelines, which I think are pretty good [1]. I'm also not implying that Derek Lowe is by any means obligated to write out a set of guidelines for my or anyone else's benefit. Just sharing my opinion of what could have made this a more informative blog post - for anyone who cares to read (and of course disagree). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

andrewflnr 5y ago

You might have a point for an actual "forum", but this is his personal blog, and comments exist at all there at his personal pleasure. Your confidence in it doesn't matter, nor does any other reader's. The only consequence to someone "losing confidence" in his personal moderation style is that they don't comment anymore, which is fine at worst, more likely exactly the goal. Further, objectivity is impossible in moderation. There are no shortcuts, some judgment is always required or your "objective" rules will be gamed to death. Acknowledging the subjectivity is exactly the right approach. I think this is the future of "forums" as well. Moderation depends on trust, so we'll be more explicit about who we're trusting, and just roll with it. Best case we get multiple moderation perspectives on a decentralized discussion mechanism. But if we just get used to the idea that forums are shaped by the personalities of their moderators, that's probably an improvement.

freetime2 5y ago
> this is his personal blog, and comments exist at all there at his personal pleasure. Your confidence in it doesn't matter, nor does any other reader's. This is a fairly nihilistic take. Lots of people do things for greater purpose than "personal pleasure". I don't know if this particular blogger cares about earning peoples' confidence or not - but I do think it's something that many bloggers/moderators care deeply about. > Further, objectivity is impossible in moderation. Absolute objectivity may be an impossible ideal, but I don't think that means we should completely give up on objectivity. Look at the US legal system - which aims to bring as much fairness and objectivity as possible to the extremely subjective process of criminal justice. A written code of laws, trial by peers, appeals system, etc. It's very far from ideal, and yet worlds better than if we just gave up completely and said "objectivity is impossible", and let the judge issue whatever verdict and sentence at whim. We see analogs of these checks and balances on popular forums, such as upvotes/downvotes (trial by peers) and community guidelines (written code of laws). To be clear I am not suggesting every blogger should go and try to replicate all of the checks and balances of the US legal system to moderate their blogs. But I do think that something as simple as posting a set of guidelines, and referring back to them regularly when people step out of line, can be a good way to set the tone for a community. Something similar to the HN guidelines, which I think are pretty good [1]. I'm also not implying that Derek Lowe is by any means obligated to write out a set of guidelines for my or anyone else's benefit. Just sharing my opinion of what could have made this a more informative blog post - for anyone who cares to read (and of course disagree). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html