3 ms·

"Literally true" is a good standard for individual libel, but a rarely applicable standard for content moderation. The classic example is, if I post crime stati

"Literally true" is a good standard for individual libel, but a rarely applicable standard for content moderation. The classic example is, if I post crime statistics, part of which shows that black people commit more crime, then: If I am using it to imply that we should hate black people or treat them differently, it would be reasonable to moderate away; and if I am not, e.g. my post is intended only in some legitimate legal/statistics context and is not part of social politics shitposting, then it makes sense not to moderate. This can of course get very subjective, and that's true of most moderation decisions. Calls-to-violence is another good example. How explicit is it? How actionable? How serious/non-joking? How influential is this person? How obvious is any implicit portion? The line gets blurry, and part of that is because the people posting know there's a line. When people are arguing, they would like things to be objective ("but it's true"), but that's unrealistic/irrational. One of the results is that people use this complexity as wiggle room to support the position they emotionally hold ("my side of politics is being oppressed"), when usually the cases they point to are not clear cut, and those that are truly clear cut are vanishingly few or do not outnumber the politically reversed cases.

ilyt 4y ago
> If I am using it to imply that we should hate black people or treat them differently, it would be reasonable to moderate away; and if I am not, e.g. my post is intended only in some legitimate legal/statistics context and is not part of social politics shitposting, then it makes sense not to moderate. Or just allow it to be downvoted away. No need for moderation if people can just chose to not see something community thinks is shit. Or block the person. No need for overbearing moderation, we're not babies that need cuddling. Reddit is kinda nice example here, on few bigger subreddits like /r/games mod play police by deleting stuff that's already downvoted to oblivion and think they're helping. > The line gets blurry, and part of that is because the people posting know there's a line. When people are arguing, they would like things to be objective ("but it's true"), but that's unrealistic/irrational. The other side of it is that biased moderators will cut way before what would be considered a line for most and so you can get to the place where honest question might get banned, just because it is entirely impossible to interpret based on the text alone and mods get into habit of assuming bad will at every step. Like for example (from few years back) asking what is about those pronouns next to the person's name ? Random troll might use it as bait, my mom would ask that as genuine questions as she's not exactly, well, "modern"
memish 4y ago
Point taken. It's messy. You could even say that simply replying "the Earth is round" is harassment if it's repeatedly targeted at an individual or flat earthers as a group. But this is what the block or mute button is for. Everyone has the right to curate what they hear or see. They don't have the right to curate what I or you hear or see. Silencing "the Earth is round" at the platform level for everyone is where it becomes objectionable.

ilyt 4y ago

> If I am using it to imply that we should hate black people or treat them differently, it would be reasonable to moderate away; and if I am not, e.g. my post is intended only in some legitimate legal/statistics context and is not part of social politics shitposting, then it makes sense not to moderate. Or just allow it to be downvoted away. No need for moderation if people can just chose to not see something community thinks is shit. Or block the person. No need for overbearing moderation, we're not babies that need cuddling. Reddit is kinda nice example here, on few bigger subreddits like /r/games mod play police by deleting stuff that's already downvoted to oblivion and think they're helping. > The line gets blurry, and part of that is because the people posting know there's a line. When people are arguing, they would like things to be objective ("but it's true"), but that's unrealistic/irrational. The other side of it is that biased moderators will cut way before what would be considered a line for most and so you can get to the place where honest question might get banned, just because it is entirely impossible to interpret based on the text alone and mods get into habit of assuming bad will at every step. Like for example (from few years back) asking what is about those pronouns next to the person's name ? Random troll might use it as bait, my mom would ask that as genuine questions as she's not exactly, well, "modern"

memish 4y ago

Point taken. It's messy. You could even say that simply replying "the Earth is round" is harassment if it's repeatedly targeted at an individual or flat earthers as a group. But this is what the block or mute button is for. Everyone has the right to curate what they hear or see. They don't have the right to curate what I or you hear or see. Silencing "the Earth is round" at the platform level for everyone is where it becomes objectionable.