3 ms·

I, for one, am glad MeFi is full of "social justice warriors" and the "trigger warning crowd". It gives the community standards, makes discussion far less aggre

I, for one, am glad MeFi is full of "social justice warriors" and the "trigger warning crowd". It gives the community standards, makes discussion far less aggressive, and allows marginalized groups to really open up. It's one of the few places online where you can get truly life-changing threads like this one[1]. This is by far the better side to err on. And actually, I've noticed the same thing happening in female-majority subreddits as well. (/r/askwomen) [1]: http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading#2777344 http://www.metafilter.com/85667/Hi-Whatcha-reading#2777344

1123581321 12y ago
No, those are chilling effects due to uncertainty about the stance of the moderating staff because they side with an increasingly smaller and louder minority. Read Larry Lessig's book about the outsized threat of campaign contributions beyond the actual contribution budget. Or, read about the Panopticon prison model or behavioral studies of the psychology of loss avoidance. There are all kinds of peaceful forums that have this problem and Metafilter is just a prominent example. The thread you linked is interesting but not outstanding for a web forum, and the cost of it is probably several threads that a healthier community would have made. This is hard for you to see because you probably read about new people entering these communities and praising them for closely fitting their preferences. What you don't see is how many people leave, don't join or reduce participation. But again, these are common forum issues. The owner of Metafilter has managed the situation pretty well and especially over sixteen years. I'm sure the personal attention to the community by Metafilter staff is a big reason why it's as similar to its old self as it is.
- archagon 12y ago
  1. I strongly disagree that it is not outstanding. 2. There are going to be "chilling effects" (read: norms) in any community. It is inevitable that like-minded people will stick with each other. The question is how these effects manifest themselves. The MeFi model is community enforcement and moderation: "uh, that's not really OK to say". The Reddit model is outright mockery, threats, ganging up, and disturbing PMs. Show me a community that a) accepts widely opposing viewpoints, while b) keeping the discussion pleasant and respectful. Personally, I'm done with the Reddit model.
  - lurknomore 12y ago
    Try reading threads like this, repeated ad nauseum: http://www.metafilter.com/147527/idea-a-man-exercising-on-a-treadmill-who-is-also-going-nowhere-in-life http://www.metafilter.com/147527/idea-a-man-exercising-on-a-...
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  "No, those are chilling effects due to uncertainty about the stance of the moderating staff because they side with an increasingly smaller and louder minority." This seems like misuse of the term "chilling effects" to mean, "I don't like it when someone tells me to stop being an asshole." The common usage of the term "chilling effects" is when legal mechanisms are used, such as cease and desist letters and DMCA takedown notices, where the threat of legal repercussions are used to shut down communication. To apply it to someone calling out the use of a sexist slur, for example, is to diminish the term "chilling effects" or to elevate some people's free speech (usually that of white males) above the free speech of everyone else. In short, a lot of the time when free speech is used as an argument, it is because others are exercising their free speech to criticize something shitty someone said. It isn't breaking free speech to call out sexist/racist/homophobic language for being sexist/racist/homophobic, it is exercising it in the best way possible. Now, of course, if moderation is used aggressively even in questionable cases, that's a different thing, and one worth discussing (with the moderators of said site). It isn't really "chilling effects", I don't think, because a privately owned community website choosing to enforce its own customs and norms is almost certainly not oppression, even if we don't like their choices.

1123581321 12y ago

No, those are chilling effects due to uncertainty about the stance of the moderating staff because they side with an increasingly smaller and louder minority. Read Larry Lessig's book about the outsized threat of campaign contributions beyond the actual contribution budget. Or, read about the Panopticon prison model or behavioral studies of the psychology of loss avoidance. There are all kinds of peaceful forums that have this problem and Metafilter is just a prominent example. The thread you linked is interesting but not outstanding for a web forum, and the cost of it is probably several threads that a healthier community would have made. This is hard for you to see because you probably read about new people entering these communities and praising them for closely fitting their preferences. What you don't see is how many people leave, don't join or reduce participation. But again, these are common forum issues. The owner of Metafilter has managed the situation pretty well and especially over sixteen years. I'm sure the personal attention to the community by Metafilter staff is a big reason why it's as similar to its old self as it is.

archagon 12y ago
1. I strongly disagree that it is not outstanding. 2. There are going to be "chilling effects" (read: norms) in any community. It is inevitable that like-minded people will stick with each other. The question is how these effects manifest themselves. The MeFi model is community enforcement and moderation: "uh, that's not really OK to say". The Reddit model is outright mockery, threats, ganging up, and disturbing PMs. Show me a community that a) accepts widely opposing viewpoints, while b) keeping the discussion pleasant and respectful. Personally, I'm done with the Reddit model.
- lurknomore 12y ago
  Try reading threads like this, repeated ad nauseum: http://www.metafilter.com/147527/idea-a-man-exercising-on-a-treadmill-who-is-also-going-nowhere-in-life http://www.metafilter.com/147527/idea-a-man-exercising-on-a-...
SwellJoe 12y ago
"No, those are chilling effects due to uncertainty about the stance of the moderating staff because they side with an increasingly smaller and louder minority." This seems like misuse of the term "chilling effects" to mean, "I don't like it when someone tells me to stop being an asshole." The common usage of the term "chilling effects" is when legal mechanisms are used, such as cease and desist letters and DMCA takedown notices, where the threat of legal repercussions are used to shut down communication. To apply it to someone calling out the use of a sexist slur, for example, is to diminish the term "chilling effects" or to elevate some people's free speech (usually that of white males) above the free speech of everyone else. In short, a lot of the time when free speech is used as an argument, it is because others are exercising their free speech to criticize something shitty someone said. It isn't breaking free speech to call out sexist/racist/homophobic language for being sexist/racist/homophobic, it is exercising it in the best way possible. Now, of course, if moderation is used aggressively even in questionable cases, that's a different thing, and one worth discussing (with the moderators of said site). It isn't really "chilling effects", I don't think, because a privately owned community website choosing to enforce its own customs and norms is almost certainly not oppression, even if we don't like their choices.