4 ms·

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

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.