5 ms·

Moderation in a public commons

25 points by edavis 3y ago

goodbyesf 3y ago
> Safety can’t just be left up to each individual to deal with on their own. Sure you can. It's the easiest thing really. You can simply click or swipe away. > Today, we’re publishing some proposals for new moderation and safety tooling. Seems like the same old thing? You are doing the same thing that every other tech company is doing but pretending to be different? It's like all these tech companies copied and pasted their rules from a single source.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  "Anti censorship" platforms are a cesspool, enjoy the company
  - pc86 3y ago
    That's what happens when the only people on anti-censorship platforms are the people who get censored on every other platform.
    - agentgumshoe 3y ago
      I think we should be careful in using the word 'censored.' A lot of these people were not censored, they were removed because their behaviour was terrible.
      - RobotToaster 3y ago
        That is still censorship
        fugalfervor 3y ago
        It's a form of censorship that benefits the community that implements it. If I post "I'M GOING TO FUCK YOUR WIFE" in response to every thread, you are most likely going to want to "censor" me.
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        Typical motte and bailey example. Are all-caps expletive-ridden posts the only thing that gets censored? Or is it also stuff like citing factual statistics from reliable sources? we can no longer allow any posts, comments, or other content that shows a POC as the aggressor [..] This absolutely means any videos, as well as news reports, photos, personal stories, data/statistics, police reports, or any other form of media. - http://archive.is/L7V0T http://archive.is/L7V0T In general, any kind of factual correction that goes against moderator-preferred narratives is at risk of censorship: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5fzxu/hmmm_wonder_why_so_many_comments_are_removed_here/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5fzxu/hmmm... https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hxedi8/was_banned_for_pointing_out_a_factual_inaccuracy/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hxedi8/was_... For pointing out overt racism against whites: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5jfek/was_banned_from_a_large_sub_with_no_reason_given/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5jfek/was_... Or for saying pets are part of the family in a different subreddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/uxxrpp/got_banned_from_a_mom_subreddit_for_saying_i/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/uxxrpp/got_...
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        Err, ok, I guess. Mods making stupid rules for community engagement are theirs to make. If you disagree you either don't break them or go elsewhere. Also, are these facts being raised within a topical discussion or dragging it out of context? Going in and saying the stuff they've stated is explicitly banned (regardless of its political or irrational nature) and then getting banned is a rather interesting way to claim censorship.
        fugalfervor 3y ago
        You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted. Do you see the problem there?
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        It's not, it's really not. It's abiding by the community rules. If you come into my house and be an arse, I'm going to make you leave. That's not censorship, you're just not behaving respectfully and being told to leave.
      - VancouverMan 3y ago
        When an individual is prevented from freely expressing himself or herself, that is censorship, and such a person has been censored. The medium or method of expression involved, and the rationale behind the suppression, are both irrelevant. "Censored" is a very applicable term to use when an individual has been banned from an online discussion forum, and/or the content that he or she posted has been removed.
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech). What you have issues with is the community guidelines. If you want the rules to be 'let me have a free for all on expression,' don't enter communities that have rules about being civil and respectful. Or just jump on Twitter...
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        > That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech) Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship They oppose government censorship. - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship (Now why would they have to specify government censorship, if there is no other kind?) Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. - https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority. - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship Now that the facts are settled, let me mention that what you are doing is extremely common. A word has acquired a negative association, so you try to redefine it so your side can engage in the behavior it previously condemned. The exact same thing happened to 'racism'.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    Every social media company ( reddit, facebook, twitter, etc ) was anti-censorship until a few years ago. Wasn't a cesspool. It was what made reddit great and that's why it became popular. > enjoy the company We did. And we would if people like you didn't try to ruin it for everyone. Reddit became a cesspool because of censorship advocated by people like you.
    - agentgumshoe 3y ago
      Reddit became a cesspool because the real world became more argumentative, divisive and particularly, more ideolised. That's reflected in a rise in inflammatory conversation. That's why old forums had rules for 'no politics, no religion.' There's probably a few more categories to add now...
    - waboremo 3y ago
      It was a cesspool, with subs like jailbait and fatpeoplehate running rampant, turning platform into nothing but a hate-obsessed one with lots of porn (mind you, not the type that reddit became famous for around ~2018, but revenge and gif reuploads to imgur). I certainly would not consider any of those "what made reddit great". What made reddit great was the era after this, when many subs were then removed for promoting hate, users could also start avoiding subs so they won't show up, and everything else left up to user choice. This was the time when more people started to trust reddit more, and thanks to the likes of tumblr struggling, people felt comfortable enough to post more valuable and personal content. Until of course they started messing with things again and then started allowing a lot of violence on the front page and filling feeds with recommendations.
      - goodbyesf 3y ago
        > It was a cesspool No it wasn't. It was an open, relatively honest and fun place that was more representative of the world around them then the politicized "safe space" cesspool that it became. > What made reddit great was the era after this, when many subs were then removed for promoting hate Did atheism, politics, news, worldnews, video and every major sub get banned? It just became concentrated and biased hate. > This was the time when more people started to trust reddit more No. It became a safe space and an echo chamber for a class of morons because it censored another group of morons. What you mean is that you got to spew hate without any pushback. And that's why you liked it.
  - kurthr 3y ago
    Indeed. Choose your level. Is accidental snuff ok, but child porn bad? White nationalist OK, but Nazi bad? Really, the only limit is whether it's ad supported. Friendster > SomethingAwful > 4Chan > 8Kun or Twitter > Gab > Parler
- kbelder 3y ago
  I don't like their usage of the term 'safety'. It seems vague and over-inclusive. What exactly are they talking about that is unsafe? Threats? Bullying? Insults? Condemnation? Moral Judgement? Unwanted advice?
robodan 3y ago
Online safety as a service. I like it!
vmpost 3y ago
Seems pretty level-headed. I appreciate their points about decentralization and the conflict between capital and the maintenance of a digital public space - it does read a little reactionary, but that makes sense. Much of the migration to Bluesky is being driven by Twitter, after all.
tedunangst 3y ago
Lot of words, not a lot of meaning. > A great experience should find a balance between creating friendly spaces and over-policing each other. The impulse to protect can sometimes degrade into nitpicking. We should drive towards norms that feel natural and easy to observe. Like what does this mean? Why haven't previous social networks tried this?
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  Reddit already had this, it's called Moderation. Forums of old had it, and a set of rules to read. It's really not that hard, people just want to have their cake (free for all conversation) and eat it too (profitable and somehow magically making everyone nice without moderation/rules)
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > Reddit already had this, it's called Moderation Some smaller Reddit communities might have it, accidentally. Mostly what Reddit has is over-policing. The reason the subscriber counts are so inflated and you see so many deleted accounts in the comments is because it's so common to get banned even if you haven't done anything objectionable.
    - agentgumshoe 3y ago
      Yeah that's because of the inflammatory nature of a lot of topics of late unfortunately. That's a human problem and I don't think it's fixed with 'better censorship.'. It's fixed by people creating new subreddits or just not using the ones with over-zealous mods. Or updating the sub rules to indicate which speech is being moderated more clearly so people can judge accordingly.
    - malfist 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you're doing to declare "it's so common to get banned". Me, nor any of my friend group has ever been banned from a community on reddit. If you've been told by multiple communities that your actions aren't fitting for their place, perhaps the issue is with you?
sirmike_ 3y ago
And what of sincere difference of opinion which rubs up on the rules? Someone has to be the losing party. Example being a normie (with default hetro perspective of sex/gender Men Women) vs the progressive perspective on infinite sex/gender fluidity. I can guess who would lose out.
- wmf 3y ago
  The point of Bluesky is that each person (not each server) gets to choose their rules. (With the exception of truly illegal content which is always blocked.)

25 points by edavis 3y ago

> Safety can’t just be left up to each individual to deal with on their own. Sure you can. It's the easiest thing really. You can simply click or swipe away. > Today, we’re publishing some proposals for new moderation and safety tooling. Seems like the same old thing? You are doing the same thing that every other tech company is doing but pretending to be different? It's like all these tech companies copied and pasted their rules from a single source.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
"Anti censorship" platforms are a cesspool, enjoy the company
- pc86 3y ago
  That's what happens when the only people on anti-censorship platforms are the people who get censored on every other platform.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    I think we should be careful in using the word 'censored.' A lot of these people were not censored, they were removed because their behaviour was terrible.
    - RobotToaster 3y ago
      That is still censorship
      - fugalfervor 3y ago
        It's a form of censorship that benefits the community that implements it. If I post "I'M GOING TO FUCK YOUR WIFE" in response to every thread, you are most likely going to want to "censor" me.
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        Typical motte and bailey example. Are all-caps expletive-ridden posts the only thing that gets censored? Or is it also stuff like citing factual statistics from reliable sources? we can no longer allow any posts, comments, or other content that shows a POC as the aggressor [..] This absolutely means any videos, as well as news reports, photos, personal stories, data/statistics, police reports, or any other form of media. - http://archive.is/L7V0T http://archive.is/L7V0T In general, any kind of factual correction that goes against moderator-preferred narratives is at risk of censorship: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5fzxu/hmmm_wonder_why_so_many_comments_are_removed_here/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5fzxu/hmmm... https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hxedi8/was_banned_for_pointing_out_a_factual_inaccuracy/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hxedi8/was_... For pointing out overt racism against whites: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5jfek/was_banned_from_a_large_sub_with_no_reason_given/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5jfek/was_... Or for saying pets are part of the family in a different subreddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/uxxrpp/got_banned_from_a_mom_subreddit_for_saying_i/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/uxxrpp/got_...
        agentgumshoe 3y ago
        Err, ok, I guess. Mods making stupid rules for community engagement are theirs to make. If you disagree you either don't break them or go elsewhere. Also, are these facts being raised within a topical discussion or dragging it out of context? Going in and saying the stuff they've stated is explicitly banned (regardless of its political or irrational nature) and then getting banned is a rather interesting way to claim censorship.
        fugalfervor 3y ago
        You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted. Do you see the problem there?
      - agentgumshoe 3y ago
        It's not, it's really not. It's abiding by the community rules. If you come into my house and be an arse, I'm going to make you leave. That's not censorship, you're just not behaving respectfully and being told to leave.
    - VancouverMan 3y ago
      When an individual is prevented from freely expressing himself or herself, that is censorship, and such a person has been censored. The medium or method of expression involved, and the rationale behind the suppression, are both irrelevant. "Censored" is a very applicable term to use when an individual has been banned from an online discussion forum, and/or the content that he or she posted has been removed.
      - agentgumshoe 3y ago
        That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech). What you have issues with is the community guidelines. If you want the rules to be 'let me have a free for all on expression,' don't enter communities that have rules about being civil and respectful. Or just jump on Twitter...
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        > That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech) Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship They oppose government censorship. - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship (Now why would they have to specify government censorship, if there is no other kind?) Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. - https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority. - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship Now that the facts are settled, let me mention that what you are doing is extremely common. A word has acquired a negative association, so you try to redefine it so your side can engage in the behavior it previously condemned. The exact same thing happened to 'racism'.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  Every social media company ( reddit, facebook, twitter, etc ) was anti-censorship until a few years ago. Wasn't a cesspool. It was what made reddit great and that's why it became popular. > enjoy the company We did. And we would if people like you didn't try to ruin it for everyone. Reddit became a cesspool because of censorship advocated by people like you.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    Reddit became a cesspool because the real world became more argumentative, divisive and particularly, more ideolised. That's reflected in a rise in inflammatory conversation. That's why old forums had rules for 'no politics, no religion.' There's probably a few more categories to add now...
  - waboremo 3y ago
    It was a cesspool, with subs like jailbait and fatpeoplehate running rampant, turning platform into nothing but a hate-obsessed one with lots of porn (mind you, not the type that reddit became famous for around ~2018, but revenge and gif reuploads to imgur). I certainly would not consider any of those "what made reddit great". What made reddit great was the era after this, when many subs were then removed for promoting hate, users could also start avoiding subs so they won't show up, and everything else left up to user choice. This was the time when more people started to trust reddit more, and thanks to the likes of tumblr struggling, people felt comfortable enough to post more valuable and personal content. Until of course they started messing with things again and then started allowing a lot of violence on the front page and filling feeds with recommendations.
    - goodbyesf 3y ago
      > It was a cesspool No it wasn't. It was an open, relatively honest and fun place that was more representative of the world around them then the politicized "safe space" cesspool that it became. > What made reddit great was the era after this, when many subs were then removed for promoting hate Did atheism, politics, news, worldnews, video and every major sub get banned? It just became concentrated and biased hate. > This was the time when more people started to trust reddit more No. It became a safe space and an echo chamber for a class of morons because it censored another group of morons. What you mean is that you got to spew hate without any pushback. And that's why you liked it.
- kurthr 3y ago
  Indeed. Choose your level. Is accidental snuff ok, but child porn bad? White nationalist OK, but Nazi bad? Really, the only limit is whether it's ad supported. Friendster > SomethingAwful > 4Chan > 8Kun or Twitter > Gab > Parler
kbelder 3y ago
I don't like their usage of the term 'safety'. It seems vague and over-inclusive. What exactly are they talking about that is unsafe? Threats? Bullying? Insults? Condemnation? Moral Judgement? Unwanted advice?

robodan 3y ago

Online safety as a service. I like it!

vmpost 3y ago

Seems pretty level-headed. I appreciate their points about decentralization and the conflict between capital and the maintenance of a digital public space - it does read a little reactionary, but that makes sense. Much of the migration to Bluesky is being driven by Twitter, after all.

tedunangst 3y ago

Lot of words, not a lot of meaning. > A great experience should find a balance between creating friendly spaces and over-policing each other. The impulse to protect can sometimes degrade into nitpicking. We should drive towards norms that feel natural and easy to observe. Like what does this mean? Why haven't previous social networks tried this?

agentgumshoe 3y ago
Reddit already had this, it's called Moderation. Forums of old had it, and a set of rules to read. It's really not that hard, people just want to have their cake (free for all conversation) and eat it too (profitable and somehow magically making everyone nice without moderation/rules)
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > Reddit already had this, it's called Moderation Some smaller Reddit communities might have it, accidentally. Mostly what Reddit has is over-policing. The reason the subscriber counts are so inflated and you see so many deleted accounts in the comments is because it's so common to get banned even if you haven't done anything objectionable.
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    Yeah that's because of the inflammatory nature of a lot of topics of late unfortunately. That's a human problem and I don't think it's fixed with 'better censorship.'. It's fixed by people creating new subreddits or just not using the ones with over-zealous mods. Or updating the sub rules to indicate which speech is being moderated more clearly so people can judge accordingly.
  - malfist 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you're doing to declare "it's so common to get banned". Me, nor any of my friend group has ever been banned from a community on reddit. If you've been told by multiple communities that your actions aren't fitting for their place, perhaps the issue is with you?

sirmike_ 3y ago

And what of sincere difference of opinion which rubs up on the rules? Someone has to be the losing party. Example being a normie (with default hetro perspective of sex/gender Men Women) vs the progressive perspective on infinite sex/gender fluidity. I can guess who would lose out.

wmf 3y ago
The point of Bluesky is that each person (not each server) gets to choose their rules. (With the exception of truly illegal content which is always blocked.)