4 ms·

> I believe you are defending a principle. If you choose not to moderate/ censor in those examples I would respect you for holding to your principle. I am of t

> I believe you are defending a principle. If you choose not to moderate/ censor in those examples I would respect you for holding to your principle. I am of the opinion that net positive benefit of free expression outweighs negatives when it’s allowed and the negatives of censorship outweigh the positives of it when it’s practiced. Also, generally I think civil people will simply reject spaces where uncivil discourse or “not appropriate” content to them is present. If I was a moderator I can see where that would create a challenge of balance towards censorship, because you would want your forum to thrive and not dry up from the garbage. Ultimately it’s not a decision I would need to make, I don’t moderate anything, nor would I. Even here on HN, I only upvote. I am not a fan of how HN handles the downvoting (content dimming), but at least I can still see it if I choose to. I also use a feed reader for HN post delivery so, flagged/dead posts still make it to me and I can choose whether those posts are worth my time.

intended 2y ago
you should definitely mod! I think its pretty critical that people who believe in Free speech get their blasted hands dirty. I cant be amongst the few people trying to communicate the stupid complexity of this issue! If you believe in free speech, then you really really have to see how the sausage is made, so that you can articlate the issues to people who believe the same thing! I'm serious! To an extent I know its uncomfortable to be put on the spot, but please at least consider it. Back to our main point: >I am of the opinion that net positive benefit of free expression outweighs negatives when it’s allowed and the negatives of censorship outweigh the positives of it when it’s practiced. I would like to think we both agree, but there is much that hinges on what you mean by positives. I ended up reading everything from court cases to research papers to reconcile the options mods have, with the principles of free speech. I eventually had to lean heavily on the analogy of the market place of ideas from the Abrams dissent, to reconcile the two. That means the good engendered by free speech, is primarily to enable the exchange of ideas - which in turn is what serves the ultimate goals of humanity. Free speech is a subordinate principle to the free and fair exchange of ideas. To illustrate -I can and do have users flood the front page with content, to suppress content that is hurtful to their ideas and image. This is speech meeting more speech. Any action I would take to stop this, is censorship and the prevention of the free expression of users. This happened over and over again, for all content critical of positions by the ruling party. The frameworks I had to figure out helped me navigate this choice, but how would you approach it? would you stop the users who are coordinating the multiple submissions of topics to prevent visibility of a post? Or would you let that behavior continue? Or would you find a way to signal boost the content that is being suppressed?
- kcplate 2y ago
  > you should definitely mod! I am way too old, opinionated, and my ability to “suffer fools gladly is long in my past” But, I do appreciate your point that it’s good to see the sausage being made. Then again, I am a person who knows exactly what is in scrapple and how it’s made, but when I am in Philly if I go to a diner it’s what I order and scarf up every morsel.
  - intended 2y ago
    It’s not the knowledge of how it’s made. It’s the reconciliation and articulation of principles reasoning. Look you may not do it. But there is a contradiction at the heart of modern American society between principles and how conversations actually function online. And this needs to be articulated by normal people for normal people. Otherwise it’s always going to be an imposed reality, Or think of it this way. Unless people who care about free speech don’t reassure mods that the consequences of not modding are acceptable - that they will also be the conscience keepers when inevitably society turns around and says “oh you should have modded more” And that has to be an informed choice. And consider that you are crotchety and old but get annoyed by free speech discussions. You aren’t crotchety and old and annoyed by discussions on ancient Roman mining methods. There’s things we can be sort of arsed to do which are within range of our interests. This is within range of yours.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      I acknowledge there would be conflicting forces and its a complex machine, but knowing myself and how important liberty has been to me for my entire adult (and even before as a teenager) life, I am confident that I would not interfere and would rather let a forum wither and die or leave moderation of it if the content presented fell outside my moral belief system rather than get in the way of people communicating where they want to communicate.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > would rather let a forum wither and die That doesn't "get in the way of people communicating where they want to communicate"? If 99.9% of a forum likes the "no child porn" rule, that's not enough?

intended 2y ago

you should definitely mod! I think its pretty critical that people who believe in Free speech get their blasted hands dirty. I cant be amongst the few people trying to communicate the stupid complexity of this issue! If you believe in free speech, then you really really have to see how the sausage is made, so that you can articlate the issues to people who believe the same thing! I'm serious! To an extent I know its uncomfortable to be put on the spot, but please at least consider it. Back to our main point: >I am of the opinion that net positive benefit of free expression outweighs negatives when it’s allowed and the negatives of censorship outweigh the positives of it when it’s practiced. I would like to think we both agree, but there is much that hinges on what you mean by positives. I ended up reading everything from court cases to research papers to reconcile the options mods have, with the principles of free speech. I eventually had to lean heavily on the analogy of the market place of ideas from the Abrams dissent, to reconcile the two. That means the good engendered by free speech, is primarily to enable the exchange of ideas - which in turn is what serves the ultimate goals of humanity. Free speech is a subordinate principle to the free and fair exchange of ideas. To illustrate -I can and do have users flood the front page with content, to suppress content that is hurtful to their ideas and image. This is speech meeting more speech. Any action I would take to stop this, is censorship and the prevention of the free expression of users. This happened over and over again, for all content critical of positions by the ruling party. The frameworks I had to figure out helped me navigate this choice, but how would you approach it? would you stop the users who are coordinating the multiple submissions of topics to prevent visibility of a post? Or would you let that behavior continue? Or would you find a way to signal boost the content that is being suppressed?

kcplate 2y ago
> you should definitely mod! I am way too old, opinionated, and my ability to “suffer fools gladly is long in my past” But, I do appreciate your point that it’s good to see the sausage being made. Then again, I am a person who knows exactly what is in scrapple and how it’s made, but when I am in Philly if I go to a diner it’s what I order and scarf up every morsel.
- intended 2y ago
  It’s not the knowledge of how it’s made. It’s the reconciliation and articulation of principles reasoning. Look you may not do it. But there is a contradiction at the heart of modern American society between principles and how conversations actually function online. And this needs to be articulated by normal people for normal people. Otherwise it’s always going to be an imposed reality, Or think of it this way. Unless people who care about free speech don’t reassure mods that the consequences of not modding are acceptable - that they will also be the conscience keepers when inevitably society turns around and says “oh you should have modded more” And that has to be an informed choice. And consider that you are crotchety and old but get annoyed by free speech discussions. You aren’t crotchety and old and annoyed by discussions on ancient Roman mining methods. There’s things we can be sort of arsed to do which are within range of our interests. This is within range of yours.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    I acknowledge there would be conflicting forces and its a complex machine, but knowing myself and how important liberty has been to me for my entire adult (and even before as a teenager) life, I am confident that I would not interfere and would rather let a forum wither and die or leave moderation of it if the content presented fell outside my moral belief system rather than get in the way of people communicating where they want to communicate.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > would rather let a forum wither and die That doesn't "get in the way of people communicating where they want to communicate"? If 99.9% of a forum likes the "no child porn" rule, that's not enough?