6 ms·

Evan drowns a good point in his own drama. I've moderated against him on a Stack Exchange site before and it's tedious how far he can push the limits. He knows

Evan drowns a good point in his own drama. I've moderated against him on a Stack Exchange site before and it's tedious how far he can push the limits. He knows the rules, the process, what's expected, and he knows how lowly moderators react when they the system alerts them to infractions. It's no surprise he's earned himself [another] suspension here. But as a moderator, what the company is doing here is ridiculous and a seemingly flagrant abuse of license. If you take contributions under CC-BY-SA, you damned-well keep the attribution unless the contributor wants to be disassociated from it. If you don't want to be associated with a contributor, delete the account, and the content. You can't pick and choose.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"You can't pick and choose." Perhaps you can if the licensor is incarcerated and unwilling to enforce the license.
maccard 2y ago
I have no experience with the writer of this post, but: > You can't pick and choose. Yes you can, when your goal is to stir the pot.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  The argument isn't over what is possible for the powerful. It's about what is right and just.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Why should the powerful care about what's right and just? (One reason is part of the title of this post)
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Because if enough of the powerless people agree on what is right, then they may act on that collectively. That could threaten the rich's hold on power.
reitzensteinm 2y ago
Yes, instead of removing attribution and keeping the content, if Stack Overflow doesn't want to be associated with the user they should just delete all of it. And pray Jon Skeet stays on the straight and narrow.
thrtythreeforty 2y ago
I kind of gave up interacting with StackExchange in a moderation/power user role after the repeated drama episodes where they kept disrespecting the community's input. I don't even remember what the individual drama cases were, I just got tired of feeling slighted. Your point about the willful license violation seems like it's along the same lines. They're in the same position as Reddit: they have a bunch of cats to herd whose labor they depend on (not enviable) but every once in a while they do something capricious and arbitrary as a company and make everyone angry.
- err4nt 2y ago
  The straw that broke this camel's back was they edited and rewrote an answer I had posted, but left my name/avatar beside what was no longer my words. That was too much for me. I wouldn't mind if they did something like "(MOD EDIT: alternate info)" or removed it if they thought it was incorrect, but I can't be having my face and name next to words I never uttered. I've never experienced that type of mod behaviour anywhere since.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    Can't you still delete it or edit in the explanation that it's not actually your answer anymore?
    - KabaKun 2y ago
      Depends. Delete - yes, if it's not the accepted answer or locked. But deleting highly-upvoted answers is generally discouraged. Edit - Probably not. Editing to correct it might be possible if it's not locked but editing to add such a disclaimer would be problematic. The best course of action would be to request disassociation, so that it's not attributed to them any more.
      - immibis 2y ago
        If you delete or edit a highly voted answer, the moderator undoes it and bans you. Happened to me.
magic_smoke_ee 2y ago
It's the implicit tyranny of building or contributing to public commons owned by corporations beholden to ideological individuals, investors, or advertisers, or to government jurisdictions with particular intrusive laws and policies. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to force a company to maintain publication of content it doesn't want to host... it can simply delete users and content whenever it chooses, but typically doesn't for reasons of goodwill and/or reputation. Youtube deletes millions of people's comments and videos daily because an AI algorithm disagreed with them by virtue of sentiment analysis and decided their combination of words was not allowed. At some point though, people around the world will demand a digital "Bill of Rights", even if the content, processing, and/or publication is happening on the systems of for-profit corporations... it's either that, or enough people must leave forums that have a history of one-sided, unfair, and/or unethical (while maybe legal) practices.
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  >enough people must leave forums that have a history of one-sided, unfair, and/or unethical (while maybe legal) practices One problem is that it's often invisible and inscrutable. I've made comments on youtube that have not shown up. I know I've heard Louis Rossmann complaining about this as well. At the time, it felt like there was a technical problem with the site not accepting my comment. But after reading your comment, in hindsight it absolutely feels like I was being AI-moderated. Had I known, I would be more inclined to decide whether or not I want to further engage with a site that silently deletes my posts. The digital bill of rights should definitely include some kind of mandatory feedback on why posts were moderated, ESPECIALLY if it was done using AI.
commandlinefan 2y ago
"Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small"
EvanCarroll 2y ago
I know my fame and legendary repute may lead one to believe otherwise, but I hate drama. I probably hate drama more than anyone else on the planet. We should _just_ focus on the facts when I post. And on the facts, I know for certain that we're always on the same page and in agreement, so long as you're right. And you're normally right. So let's put the drama behind us.
- scotty79 2y ago
  IMHO you are absolutely in the right here but yearly ban might do you good. This level of engagement with a single corporate site is not healthy for anybody. I know it's unjust (all life is), hurtful and evokes all negative emotions but sometimes you need to be hurting a bit to get out of local minimum in your life that sucks your time and resources by just being not terrible enough to leave. Besides SO viewership drops like a stone since LLMs became a thing. Soon it'll be an open-air museum rather than a staple.
  - shagie 2y ago
    Else-recent-SE https://gist.github.com/hopeseekr/f522e380e35745bd5bdc3269a9f0b132 https://gist.github.com/hopeseekr/f522e380e35745bd5bdc3269a9... and https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1hwg2px/stackoverflow_has_lost_77_of_new_questions/ https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1hwg2px/stacko... From the attached .csv Year Month NumQuestions 2025 1 2967 2024 12 25566 2024 11 26832 2024 10 30428 2024 9 32376 2024 8 36010 2024 7 42219 ... 2017 12 142102 2017 11 165479 2017 10 166236 2017 9 158760 2017 8 173592 2017 7 175909 ... 2009 12 36729 2009 11 37204 2009 10 34009 2009 9 28969 2009 8 28104 2009 7 27731
ssahoo 2y ago
At this point, do they even need human moderators? Can't they just remove them with AI to save cost?
- KabaKun 2y ago
  What cost? Moderators are volunteers, not employees. The closest thing to paid moderators are the Community Management team but they only step in occasionally.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"You can't pick and choose." Perhaps you can if the licensor is incarcerated and unwilling to enforce the license.

maccard 2y ago

I have no experience with the writer of this post, but: > You can't pick and choose. Yes you can, when your goal is to stir the pot.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
The argument isn't over what is possible for the powerful. It's about what is right and just.
- immibis 2y ago
  Why should the powerful care about what's right and just? (One reason is part of the title of this post)
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Because if enough of the powerless people agree on what is right, then they may act on that collectively. That could threaten the rich's hold on power.

reitzensteinm 2y ago

Yes, instead of removing attribution and keeping the content, if Stack Overflow doesn't want to be associated with the user they should just delete all of it. And pray Jon Skeet stays on the straight and narrow.

thrtythreeforty 2y ago

I kind of gave up interacting with StackExchange in a moderation/power user role after the repeated drama episodes where they kept disrespecting the community's input. I don't even remember what the individual drama cases were, I just got tired of feeling slighted. Your point about the willful license violation seems like it's along the same lines. They're in the same position as Reddit: they have a bunch of cats to herd whose labor they depend on (not enviable) but every once in a while they do something capricious and arbitrary as a company and make everyone angry.

err4nt 2y ago
The straw that broke this camel's back was they edited and rewrote an answer I had posted, but left my name/avatar beside what was no longer my words. That was too much for me. I wouldn't mind if they did something like "(MOD EDIT: alternate info)" or removed it if they thought it was incorrect, but I can't be having my face and name next to words I never uttered. I've never experienced that type of mod behaviour anywhere since.
- scotty79 2y ago
  Can't you still delete it or edit in the explanation that it's not actually your answer anymore?
  - KabaKun 2y ago
    Depends. Delete - yes, if it's not the accepted answer or locked. But deleting highly-upvoted answers is generally discouraged. Edit - Probably not. Editing to correct it might be possible if it's not locked but editing to add such a disclaimer would be problematic. The best course of action would be to request disassociation, so that it's not attributed to them any more.
    - immibis 2y ago
      If you delete or edit a highly voted answer, the moderator undoes it and bans you. Happened to me.

magic_smoke_ee 2y ago

It's the implicit tyranny of building or contributing to public commons owned by corporations beholden to ideological individuals, investors, or advertisers, or to government jurisdictions with particular intrusive laws and policies. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to force a company to maintain publication of content it doesn't want to host... it can simply delete users and content whenever it chooses, but typically doesn't for reasons of goodwill and/or reputation. Youtube deletes millions of people's comments and videos daily because an AI algorithm disagreed with them by virtue of sentiment analysis and decided their combination of words was not allowed. At some point though, people around the world will demand a digital "Bill of Rights", even if the content, processing, and/or publication is happening on the systems of for-profit corporations... it's either that, or enough people must leave forums that have a history of one-sided, unfair, and/or unethical (while maybe legal) practices.

brokenmachine 2y ago
>enough people must leave forums that have a history of one-sided, unfair, and/or unethical (while maybe legal) practices One problem is that it's often invisible and inscrutable. I've made comments on youtube that have not shown up. I know I've heard Louis Rossmann complaining about this as well. At the time, it felt like there was a technical problem with the site not accepting my comment. But after reading your comment, in hindsight it absolutely feels like I was being AI-moderated. Had I known, I would be more inclined to decide whether or not I want to further engage with a site that silently deletes my posts. The digital bill of rights should definitely include some kind of mandatory feedback on why posts were moderated, ESPECIALLY if it was done using AI.

commandlinefan 2y ago

"Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small"

EvanCarroll 2y ago

I know my fame and legendary repute may lead one to believe otherwise, but I hate drama. I probably hate drama more than anyone else on the planet. We should _just_ focus on the facts when I post. And on the facts, I know for certain that we're always on the same page and in agreement, so long as you're right. And you're normally right. So let's put the drama behind us.

scotty79 2y ago
IMHO you are absolutely in the right here but yearly ban might do you good. This level of engagement with a single corporate site is not healthy for anybody. I know it's unjust (all life is), hurtful and evokes all negative emotions but sometimes you need to be hurting a bit to get out of local minimum in your life that sucks your time and resources by just being not terrible enough to leave. Besides SO viewership drops like a stone since LLMs became a thing. Soon it'll be an open-air museum rather than a staple.
- shagie 2y ago
  Else-recent-SE https://gist.github.com/hopeseekr/f522e380e35745bd5bdc3269a9f0b132 https://gist.github.com/hopeseekr/f522e380e35745bd5bdc3269a9... and https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1hwg2px/stackoverflow_has_lost_77_of_new_questions/ https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1hwg2px/stacko... From the attached .csv Year Month NumQuestions 2025 1 2967 2024 12 25566 2024 11 26832 2024 10 30428 2024 9 32376 2024 8 36010 2024 7 42219 ... 2017 12 142102 2017 11 165479 2017 10 166236 2017 9 158760 2017 8 173592 2017 7 175909 ... 2009 12 36729 2009 11 37204 2009 10 34009 2009 9 28969 2009 8 28104 2009 7 27731

ssahoo 2y ago

At this point, do they even need human moderators? Can't they just remove them with AI to save cost?

KabaKun 2y ago
What cost? Moderators are volunteers, not employees. The closest thing to paid moderators are the Community Management team but they only step in occasionally.