3 ms·

> Not all dissent, just that which is unproductive. And who gets to pick what's productive or not? That's always the hitch in these schemes: is criticizing de

> Not all dissent, just that which is unproductive. And who gets to pick what's productive or not? That's always the hitch in these schemes: is criticizing decisions about what to police productive? is criticizing the beliefs of the owners productive? is not agreeing with the norm of the community productive? The person making these calls has a vested interested in not seeing certain kinds of criticism and in accruing more power for themselves, so there's an inherent conflict of interest that tends to go wrong.

acqq 12y ago
> And who gets to pick what's productive or not? The community! That's what we're talking about here: how can the majority of some community avoid losing their own gathering place to a minority that makes the same place unhabitable for the rest. See Hacker News. Voting. Moderating. Edit: Sometimes even resuliting in graying this very comment out. Which is OK if we beleive in the basic principle.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  In the case of Hacker News, not everyone agrees on what's productive or not. Saying "the community" without some way to decide between split opinions isn't a real answer to how we're going to pick. One could argue that we're already doing some form of community driven decision about what's productive on Hacker News (what, with the voting and what not), but you're clearly not happy with what people settled on through that method.
  - acqq 12y ago
    > but you're clearly not happy with what people settled on through that method. I am. And I'm also willing to risk having the post downvoted if it goes against what some "voters" would find offensive to their beliefs. For example, a lot of US people, including those on HN, believe it's not allowed to directly "talk negative" about any religion (when I just point to obvious aggresive teachings in them). And I beleive that that approach makes the world much worse.
arjie 12y ago
You do, as overlord (or if you share, your cabal). Hopefully, since it is your site, you will be sensible. If you aren't, then you're left with a cesspool. Even today, dang and gang actively shut down comments that are very bad. This is, imho, A Good Thing™.
anigbrowl 12y ago
That's certainly a problem in politics, which is why in democratic countries free speech protections are usually broad enough to encompass everything short of incitement to criminal activity. But on private online platforms the owner/operator is in effect a dictatorship, and users can participate or not as they see fit. While free speech laws prevent official censorship, nobody is owed a platform for the expression of their views; so if some trolls are discomfited by being unwelcome at many social sites, so what? Why should their putative right to say obnoxious things take precedence over others' perfectly reasonable desires not to be harassed, and the site operators' (typical) choice to cater to the larger demographic?
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  My point is that site policing rarely stops at trolls: it usually creeps out to extend first to people who criticize the policing of trolls, because who thinks trolls deserve defending? and then it creeps out a little more to silence fringe views, because what are they really adding to the conversation? and then it creeps out a little more to silence people who don't share the majority view, because who wants to be in a community where we constantly have to deal with people who don't agree with the obvious rightness of our opinions? It's not like it hasn't been tried before, it's just that policing ideas so rarely stops with just the trolls I'm skeptical of the whole premise.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    That's all true, but if an online community becomes unwelcoming the cost of leaving is virtually zero - I've abandoned several because I had begun to find them toxic for one reason or another. I do think moderation works better when it's unilateral and there's a clear demarcation between administration and membership so you don't end up with social capture, ie a clear understanding that Forum X is not a democracy or even a polity. It's an imperfect situation, but if you want to run a structured forum (eg the typical case of one that's dedicated to particular topics of mutual interest), then it's better than just establishing it and walking away, because without any sort of moderation at all the evidence is that it will quickly turn into a toxic shithole and be useless for its original purpose. Usenet's alt tree was the best example of a benign self-regulating anarchy but even that buckled in the wake of Eternal September and never really recovered IMHO.

acqq 12y ago

> And who gets to pick what's productive or not? The community! That's what we're talking about here: how can the majority of some community avoid losing their own gathering place to a minority that makes the same place unhabitable for the rest. See Hacker News. Voting. Moderating. Edit: Sometimes even resuliting in graying this very comment out. Which is OK if we beleive in the basic principle.

ObviousScience 12y ago
In the case of Hacker News, not everyone agrees on what's productive or not. Saying "the community" without some way to decide between split opinions isn't a real answer to how we're going to pick. One could argue that we're already doing some form of community driven decision about what's productive on Hacker News (what, with the voting and what not), but you're clearly not happy with what people settled on through that method.
- acqq 12y ago
  > but you're clearly not happy with what people settled on through that method. I am. And I'm also willing to risk having the post downvoted if it goes against what some "voters" would find offensive to their beliefs. For example, a lot of US people, including those on HN, believe it's not allowed to directly "talk negative" about any religion (when I just point to obvious aggresive teachings in them). And I beleive that that approach makes the world much worse.

arjie 12y ago

You do, as overlord (or if you share, your cabal). Hopefully, since it is your site, you will be sensible. If you aren't, then you're left with a cesspool. Even today, dang and gang actively shut down comments that are very bad. This is, imho, A Good Thing™.

anigbrowl 12y ago

That's certainly a problem in politics, which is why in democratic countries free speech protections are usually broad enough to encompass everything short of incitement to criminal activity. But on private online platforms the owner/operator is in effect a dictatorship, and users can participate or not as they see fit. While free speech laws prevent official censorship, nobody is owed a platform for the expression of their views; so if some trolls are discomfited by being unwelcome at many social sites, so what? Why should their putative right to say obnoxious things take precedence over others' perfectly reasonable desires not to be harassed, and the site operators' (typical) choice to cater to the larger demographic?

ObviousScience 12y ago
My point is that site policing rarely stops at trolls: it usually creeps out to extend first to people who criticize the policing of trolls, because who thinks trolls deserve defending? and then it creeps out a little more to silence fringe views, because what are they really adding to the conversation? and then it creeps out a little more to silence people who don't share the majority view, because who wants to be in a community where we constantly have to deal with people who don't agree with the obvious rightness of our opinions? It's not like it hasn't been tried before, it's just that policing ideas so rarely stops with just the trolls I'm skeptical of the whole premise.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That's all true, but if an online community becomes unwelcoming the cost of leaving is virtually zero - I've abandoned several because I had begun to find them toxic for one reason or another. I do think moderation works better when it's unilateral and there's a clear demarcation between administration and membership so you don't end up with social capture, ie a clear understanding that Forum X is not a democracy or even a polity. It's an imperfect situation, but if you want to run a structured forum (eg the typical case of one that's dedicated to particular topics of mutual interest), then it's better than just establishing it and walking away, because without any sort of moderation at all the evidence is that it will quickly turn into a toxic shithole and be useless for its original purpose. Usenet's alt tree was the best example of a benign self-regulating anarchy but even that buckled in the wake of Eternal September and never really recovered IMHO.