3 ms·

Yep, I used to be a free speech absolutist when I was younger, back when I thought the world was black and white and that simple ideas could "solve everything".

Yep, I used to be a free speech absolutist when I was younger, back when I thought the world was black and white and that simple ideas could "solve everything". Then I participated in forums/groups that had zero moderation and it was hell. Even then I didn't recognize the issues fully. It wasn't until I moderated a community myself that it finally clicked. I tried to be unbiased as possible but that lead to me silencing people who stepped over the line who I agreed with and me giving people I didn't agree with a ton of leeway to avoid seeming biased, it nearly killed the community. Once I started trying to enforce right down the center I got to experience the backlash of the people who I had given leeway to (not the same people, same group of people). Death threats, attacks, etc. It was not fun. I didn't want to be seen as a "dictator" but that experience taught me that if you want to have a good environment for discussion/community you have to crack down hard on the people who keep pushing the line. Short-term bans resulted in lots of complaining with zero change in behavior for 99% of the offenders. Permanent bans were the only useful tool, even then they'd still sometimes come back under new accounts but eventually get bored. People complain about reddit moderation but I totally get it in most cases. If you let people push the line they will just keep going until it gets really bad, much better to nip it in the bud. Especially when we are talking about unpaid moderators. Moderation is not an easy or fun job.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> It wasn't until I moderated a community myself that it finally clicked. The key is that each community needs to moderate itself. The second you give one entity centralised or external control over moderation it can be used for terrible things. I can't think of any solution for the toxic communities other than to cut themoff and let them fester. The youtube/facebook/etc strategy of 'all engagement is good, show them more' is incredibly harmful.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  It does seem like the problem with twitter is it is one big open subreddit, but that's sort of the vision too. The solution may be to find ways to segment twitter more, but does that fly in the face of the public square goal.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > The key is that each community needs to moderate itself. The second you give one entity centralised or external control over moderation it can be used for terrible things. Do you have any examples of this in practice? I'm not saying I for "1 person has all the power" but I'm not aware of any community that doesn't require 1+ moderators who have the power to hide/remove/block/etc, even HN has that.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Add to that, dang also has the power to unhide, unflag, etc. when he notices brigading. Giving the reins entirely to the community totally works for a very small community. Not the whole internet.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    In traditional fora/irc/whatever or even reddit to some extent (subreddit moderators follow the pattern, admins do not) the moderators are the founders of the community or are selected by then community via social processes. The structure resembles a village. Mastodon is the most clear example. Mostof the small servers are their own community with a common interest, usually funded by its members directly or by someone doing it to henefit the members. 'If you don't like it, leave' is a valid sentiment because the moderators are not holding your social network hostage and don't get to choose which other communities you can see or participate in. In the facebook/tiktok/google/etc model, moderators are minimum wage workers with moderation objectives set by people who own the platform to satisfy advertisers or other central authorities. The structure resembles a mall or maybe a state. The penalty for non-compliance is isolation, and in many cases for facebook and google restriction of access to real services in the real world. HN fits neither neatly, but is slightly more towards the first.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > I can't think of any solution for the toxic communities other than to cut themoff and let them fester. The youtube/facebook/etc strategy of 'all engagement is good, show them more' is incredibly harmful. It's entirely fine. The problem YT/Facebook have is user's lack of control on what gets recommended. Play the "wrong" video once or twice and you will be flooded by stuff you don't want. The fact someone somewhere on the site says something you don't like is not a problem. The problem is that it's kinda easy to go "you follow Xpotato12" -> "X potato12 is outraged by Y and hates it" -> click to see what is happens -> now YT recommends you Y because you "engaged" with it. There should be a better system to deal with that.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > It's entirely fine. The problem YT/Facebook have is user's lack of control on what gets recommended. Play the "wrong" video once or twice and you will be flooded by stuff you don't want. This is the same problem I was describing... Users have no control over what they see, and open communities have little control over where the bar for who should be banned is or what other communities they are in contact with.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Dracophoenix 4y ago
The point of free speech is to push the line. Imagine if people stuck with the speech standards of the 1950s. There would be plenty of people here who would be disenfranchised.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  With the government? Yes. Within a community? It's more complicated than that. Is someone coming into a community posting the n-word or just being incredibly abrasive/offensive "pushing the line" or just being a troll? Online communities get to set their own rules and if you want to buck that trend then try to get support to change those rules or create your own community where you can make the rules.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    it looks like support to change the rules has been obtained.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Initially, I was confused by what you meant by the word "community". Now that I see that you mean online community in the sense of an online forum, then yes, pushing the line may necessitate someone's removal. After all an online community is in almost every case hosted on private property. However, there is a problem that mostly is evaded or goes unexamined with many of these arguments: Does a community (in the general sense of the word) have the right to actively police/censor the content of an individual or group of people on the Internet in their own community (such as in the case of Kiwifarms)?
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > Does a community (in the general sense of the word) have the right to actively police/censor the content of an individual or group of people on the Internet in their own community (such as in the case of Kiwifarms)? Does Facebook or any other community have a right to take KiwiFarms off the net? Obviously not. Is Facebook, Cloudflare or any other company allowed to decide that they want nothing to do with content like KiwiFarms and refuse to do business with them? Absolutely.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> It wasn't until I moderated a community myself that it finally clicked. The key is that each community needs to moderate itself. The second you give one entity centralised or external control over moderation it can be used for terrible things. I can't think of any solution for the toxic communities other than to cut themoff and let them fester. The youtube/facebook/etc strategy of 'all engagement is good, show them more' is incredibly harmful.

mikkergp 4y ago
It does seem like the problem with twitter is it is one big open subreddit, but that's sort of the vision too. The solution may be to find ways to segment twitter more, but does that fly in the face of the public square goal.
joshstrange 4y ago
> The key is that each community needs to moderate itself. The second you give one entity centralised or external control over moderation it can be used for terrible things. Do you have any examples of this in practice? I'm not saying I for "1 person has all the power" but I'm not aware of any community that doesn't require 1+ moderators who have the power to hide/remove/block/etc, even HN has that.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Add to that, dang also has the power to unhide, unflag, etc. when he notices brigading. Giving the reins entirely to the community totally works for a very small community. Not the whole internet.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  In traditional fora/irc/whatever or even reddit to some extent (subreddit moderators follow the pattern, admins do not) the moderators are the founders of the community or are selected by then community via social processes. The structure resembles a village. Mastodon is the most clear example. Mostof the small servers are their own community with a common interest, usually funded by its members directly or by someone doing it to henefit the members. 'If you don't like it, leave' is a valid sentiment because the moderators are not holding your social network hostage and don't get to choose which other communities you can see or participate in. In the facebook/tiktok/google/etc model, moderators are minimum wage workers with moderation objectives set by people who own the platform to satisfy advertisers or other central authorities. The structure resembles a mall or maybe a state. The penalty for non-compliance is isolation, and in many cases for facebook and google restriction of access to real services in the real world. HN fits neither neatly, but is slightly more towards the first.
ilyt 4y ago
> I can't think of any solution for the toxic communities other than to cut themoff and let them fester. The youtube/facebook/etc strategy of 'all engagement is good, show them more' is incredibly harmful. It's entirely fine. The problem YT/Facebook have is user's lack of control on what gets recommended. Play the "wrong" video once or twice and you will be flooded by stuff you don't want. The fact someone somewhere on the site says something you don't like is not a problem. The problem is that it's kinda easy to go "you follow Xpotato12" -> "X potato12 is outraged by Y and hates it" -> click to see what is happens -> now YT recommends you Y because you "engaged" with it. There should be a better system to deal with that.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > It's entirely fine. The problem YT/Facebook have is user's lack of control on what gets recommended. Play the "wrong" video once or twice and you will be flooded by stuff you don't want. This is the same problem I was describing... Users have no control over what they see, and open communities have little control over where the bar for who should be banned is or what other communities they are in contact with.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Dracophoenix 4y ago

The point of free speech is to push the line. Imagine if people stuck with the speech standards of the 1950s. There would be plenty of people here who would be disenfranchised.

joshstrange 4y ago
With the government? Yes. Within a community? It's more complicated than that. Is someone coming into a community posting the n-word or just being incredibly abrasive/offensive "pushing the line" or just being a troll? Online communities get to set their own rules and if you want to buck that trend then try to get support to change those rules or create your own community where you can make the rules.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  it looks like support to change the rules has been obtained.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  Initially, I was confused by what you meant by the word "community". Now that I see that you mean online community in the sense of an online forum, then yes, pushing the line may necessitate someone's removal. After all an online community is in almost every case hosted on private property. However, there is a problem that mostly is evaded or goes unexamined with many of these arguments: Does a community (in the general sense of the word) have the right to actively police/censor the content of an individual or group of people on the Internet in their own community (such as in the case of Kiwifarms)?
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > Does a community (in the general sense of the word) have the right to actively police/censor the content of an individual or group of people on the Internet in their own community (such as in the case of Kiwifarms)? Does Facebook or any other community have a right to take KiwiFarms off the net? Obviously not. Is Facebook, Cloudflare or any other company allowed to decide that they want nothing to do with content like KiwiFarms and refuse to do business with them? Absolutely.