3 ms·

I "run" an forum that is an offshoot of a very popular professional software development blog. The original forum was closed by the blog author and my site rep

I "run" an forum that is an offshoot of a very popular professional software development blog. The original forum was closed by the blog author and my site replaced it. This forum has rules but they're pretty minor (no doxxing, etc) and users cannot be filtered away, only posts can be removed. Having run this forum for over a decade, I have a lot of insight into running an anonymous free form nearly censorship free place on the Internet. 1. There are many mentally disturbed people on the Internet. So point #1 of the article, "We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." is already off the mark. And even perfectly normal people tend to be worse human beings online (The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). And these are people, like you and me, who earn their living making software. 2. "We accept everyones contributions." Yes, but bytes being free creates a situation where some contributions will overshadow other everyone else's contributions. 1 person can literally post 10,000x more than anyone else. And they will, see point #1. This creates an unbalanced situation that is very hard to resolve. In my opinion, if you want to be inclusive it's pretty damn hard without any rules, moderation, censorship, limited access, etc.

13thLetter 11y ago
This is all definitely true. What happens, though, when the "mentally disturbed people" -- or even just some completely sane people who happen to have a political/cultural agenda foremost in their minds, rather than the good of the project or organization -- work their way into control of the rules, moderation, censorship, and limited access? This is not just possible but highly likely, given that moderation is an unpleasant and time-consuming job and anyone who volunteers is quite likely to get it. And once the power to deploy these rules is in the hands of the people who were supposed to be restrained by these rules, things tend to get very dark, very quickly.
- wvenable 11y ago
  Everyone always thinks moderators are evil. They have "the power" and you do not. It's basic human nature. The reality, of course, is that it's a thankless but necessary job that can't please everyone. Most give up after being constantly harassed and accused of having an agenda. Moderation decisions are imperfect because there are plenty of competing interests and there is often no obvious right answer. Conspiracy theories abound these days and it's mostly ridiculous.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    No, I don't think moderators are evil; that's absurd. Moderators are people. Some are good and some are bad. But the nature of the job of a volunteer moderator is that it's going to be hard to get anyone to do it who isn't, as you say, going to give up and quit because of all the crap they have to put up with in exchange for no pay. Who's going to be left? The egotists, the fanatics, and the folks who see it as a useful tool to "change the world." It's hard to picture a solution. Perhaps if moderation was an actual job; that would at least weed out some of the folks who are unstable or are just in it for internet points.

13thLetter 11y ago

This is all definitely true. What happens, though, when the "mentally disturbed people" -- or even just some completely sane people who happen to have a political/cultural agenda foremost in their minds, rather than the good of the project or organization -- work their way into control of the rules, moderation, censorship, and limited access? This is not just possible but highly likely, given that moderation is an unpleasant and time-consuming job and anyone who volunteers is quite likely to get it. And once the power to deploy these rules is in the hands of the people who were supposed to be restrained by these rules, things tend to get very dark, very quickly.

wvenable 11y ago
Everyone always thinks moderators are evil. They have "the power" and you do not. It's basic human nature. The reality, of course, is that it's a thankless but necessary job that can't please everyone. Most give up after being constantly harassed and accused of having an agenda. Moderation decisions are imperfect because there are plenty of competing interests and there is often no obvious right answer. Conspiracy theories abound these days and it's mostly ridiculous.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  No, I don't think moderators are evil; that's absurd. Moderators are people. Some are good and some are bad. But the nature of the job of a volunteer moderator is that it's going to be hard to get anyone to do it who isn't, as you say, going to give up and quit because of all the crap they have to put up with in exchange for no pay. Who's going to be left? The egotists, the fanatics, and the folks who see it as a useful tool to "change the world." It's hard to picture a solution. Perhaps if moderation was an actual job; that would at least weed out some of the folks who are unstable or are just in it for internet points.