Moderation in a public commons | Hacker News Reader

Moderation in a public commons

blueskyweb.xyz

25 pointsedavis35 comments

Lot of words, not a lot of meaning.

> A great experience should find a balance between creating friendly spaces and over-policing each other. The impulse to protect can sometimes degrade into nitpicking. We should drive towards norms that feel natural and easy to observe.

Like what does this mean? Why haven't previous social networks tried this?

Reddit already had this, it's called Moderation. Forums of old had it, and a set of rules to read.

It's really not that hard, people just want to have their cake (free for all conversation) and eat it too (profitable and somehow magically making everyone nice without moderation/rules)

> Reddit already had this, it's called Moderation

Some smaller Reddit communities might have it, accidentally. Mostly what Reddit has is over-policing. The reason the subscriber counts are so inflated and you see so many deleted accounts in the comments is because it's so common to get banned even if you haven't done anything objectionable.

Yeah that's because of the inflammatory nature of a lot of topics of late unfortunately. That's a human problem and I don't think it's fixed with 'better censorship.'. It's fixed by people creating new subreddits or just not using the ones with over-zealous mods. Or updating the sub rules to indicate which speech is being moderated more clearly so people can judge accordingly.

I'm not sure what you're doing to declare "it's so common to get banned". Me, nor any of my friend group has ever been banned from a community on reddit.

If you've been told by multiple communities that your actions aren't fitting for their place, perhaps the issue is with you?

> perhaps the issue is with you

I don't appreciate the insinuation, I generally expect more from HN. But I'll bite.

I've only ever been banned once, myself. I used the words "January" and "6" in close proximity in a discussion, and it turns out it is an unwritten rule that you may not mention that date. I've had friends get banned because they posted in an unrelated subreddit that the moderators did not like. And I've seen randos banned for nothing more than observing that the moderators were reactionary. No attacking, no profanity or anything like that, just an observation and -bam-.

You can see hints of the frequency by the sheer number of "[deleted]" accounts that show up in a typical large discussion.

Reddit is a cesspool these days. Virtually all major subreddits are now dominated by politics, and you get banned quickly if you say something which is perceived to be against the preferred ideology of the moderator.

That is where the problems have risen, by allowing politics in discussions. There's a very good reason politics and religion were historically banned in forums and groups. It appears we need to learn the lesson again.

Also, moderators are people and they're not perfect. Unfortunately allowing political discussion in also brings out political bias in the mods and it gets out of hand.

Twitter on the other hand pretends we don't need moderation, but then arbitrarily bans people because something. There's no clear guidelines, no consistent behaviour and mod-by-ML is useless in the end. It's a perfect example of 'free speech' implemented by someone who has no real idea what that means.

> A great experience should find a balance between creating friendly spaces and over-policing each other.

A great experience should not primarily be a worsening spiral of wounds and resentments. It should primarily be a productive and mutually supportive exchange.

Just like in the real world, which is the model for healthy social interaction and sustainability.

Real society involves names, addresses, and credit ratings. The Social Media business is not about real society. At best, narrow interest groups will thrive.

> Social media has a reputation for being emotionally chaotic. Some days it can be fulfilling, and other days it can be a box of horrors. If we’re going to succeed in our mission of creating social media that operates as a sustainable public commons, these tools need to not just be good in theory, but actually help create a better social space than what has come before.

Without an anchor in real social trust, the above is either hopelessly naive or calculated to sound attractive to investors.

> Safety can’t just be left up to each individual to deal with on their own.

Sure you can. It's the easiest thing really. You can simply click or swipe away.

> Today, we’re publishing some proposals for new moderation and safety tooling.

Seems like the same old thing? You are doing the same thing that every other tech company is doing but pretending to be different? It's like all these tech companies copied and pasted their rules from a single source.

"Anti censorship" platforms are a cesspool, enjoy the company

That's what happens when the only people on anti-censorship platforms are the people who get censored on every other platform.

I think we should be careful in using the word 'censored.' A lot of these people were not censored, they were removed because their behaviour was terrible.

When an individual is prevented from freely expressing himself or herself, that is censorship, and such a person has been censored.

The medium or method of expression involved, and the rationale behind the suppression, are both irrelevant.

"Censored" is a very applicable term to use when an individual has been banned from an online discussion forum, and/or the content that he or she posted has been removed.

That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech). What you have issues with is the community guidelines. If you want the rules to be 'let me have a free for all on expression,' don't enter communities that have rules about being civil and respectful. Or just jump on Twitter...

> That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech)

Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

They oppose government censorship. - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship (Now why would they have to specify government censorship, if there is no other kind?)

Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. - https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship

Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority. - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship

Now that the facts are settled, let me mention that what you are doing is extremely common. A word has acquired a negative association, so you try to redefine it so your side can engage in the behavior it previously condemned. The exact same thing happened to 'racism'.

That is still censorship

It's a form of censorship that benefits the community that implements it. If I post "I'M GOING TO FUCK YOUR WIFE" in response to every thread, you are most likely going to want to "censor" me.

Typical motte and bailey example. Are all-caps expletive-ridden posts the only thing that gets censored? Or is it also stuff like citing factual statistics from reliable sources?

we can no longer allow any posts, comments, or other content that shows a POC as the aggressor [..] This absolutely means any videos, as well as news reports, photos, personal stories, data/statistics, police reports, or any other form of media. - http://archive.is/L7V0T

In general, any kind of factual correction that goes against moderator-preferred narratives is at risk of censorship: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5fzxu/hmmm...

https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hxedi8/was_...

For pointing out overt racism against whites: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5jfek/was_...

Or for saying pets are part of the family in a different subreddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/uxxrpp/got_...

Err, ok, I guess. Mods making stupid rules for community engagement are theirs to make. If you disagree you either don't break them or go elsewhere. Also, are these facts being raised within a topical discussion or dragging it out of context?

Going in and saying the stuff they've stated is explicitly banned (regardless of its political or irrational nature) and then getting banned is a rather interesting way to claim censorship.

You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.

Do you see the problem there?

> Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.

Where did I argue that? I just pointed out that what reddit is doing is censorship, and that painting it as only banning spam and vulgarity is false and deceptive.

You're free to argue that they have a right to censor, and even that they're using that right appropriately, just don't lie about how they're using it.

> Where did I argue that?

It's implied. You agree that some censorship is appropriate but disagree with what that is, suggesting that you know better than someone else which censorship is appropriate.

It's convenient that one can't point out deceptive characterization of censorship, or highlight the nature of existing censorship, without implying a bunch of strawman positions that are easy to argue against, isn't it?

Was it you who flagged my post? Can you please argue to the moderators that my expression should go uncensored?

It's not, it's really not. It's abiding by the community rules.

If you come into my house and be an arse, I'm going to make you leave. That's not censorship, you're just not behaving respectfully and being told to leave.

Every social media company ( reddit, facebook, twitter, etc ) was anti-censorship until a few years ago. Wasn't a cesspool. It was what made reddit great and that's why it became popular.

> enjoy the company

We did. And we would if people like you didn't try to ruin it for everyone.

Reddit became a cesspool because of censorship advocated by people like you.

Reddit became a cesspool because the real world became more argumentative, divisive and particularly, more ideolised. That's reflected in a rise in inflammatory conversation.

That's why old forums had rules for 'no politics, no religion.' There's probably a few more categories to add now...

It was a cesspool, with subs like jailbait and fatpeoplehate running rampant, turning platform into nothing but a hate-obsessed one with lots of porn (mind you, not the type that reddit became famous for around ~2018, but revenge and gif reuploads to imgur). I certainly would not consider any of those "what made reddit great".

What made reddit great was the era after this, when many subs were then removed for promoting hate, users could also start avoiding subs so they won't show up, and everything else left up to user choice. This was the time when more people started to trust reddit more, and thanks to the likes of tumblr struggling, people felt comfortable enough to post more valuable and personal content.

Until of course they started messing with things again and then started allowing a lot of violence on the front page and filling feeds with recommendations.

> It was a cesspool

No it wasn't. It was an open, relatively honest and fun place that was more representative of the world around them then the politicized "safe space" cesspool that it became.

> What made reddit great was the era after this, when many subs were then removed for promoting hate

Did atheism, politics, news, worldnews, video and every major sub get banned? It just became concentrated and biased hate.

> This was the time when more people started to trust reddit more

No. It became a safe space and an echo chamber for a class of morons because it censored another group of morons.

What you mean is that you got to spew hate without any pushback. And that's why you liked it.

Indeed. Choose your level. Is accidental snuff ok, but child porn bad? White nationalist OK, but Nazi bad?

Really, the only limit is whether it's ad supported.

Friendster > SomethingAwful > 4Chan > 8Kun

Twitter > Gab > Parler

I don't like their usage of the term 'safety'. It seems vague and over-inclusive.

What exactly are they talking about that is unsafe? Threats? Bullying? Insults? Condemnation? Moral Judgement? Unwanted advice?

And what of sincere difference of opinion which rubs up on the rules? Someone has to be the losing party. Example being a normie (with default hetro perspective of sex/gender Men Women) vs the progressive perspective on infinite sex/gender fluidity. I can guess who would lose out.

The point of Bluesky is that each person (not each server) gets to choose their rules. (With the exception of truly illegal content which is always blocked.)

Seems pretty level-headed. I appreciate their points about decentralization and the conflict between capital and the maintenance of a digital public space - it does read a little reactionary, but that makes sense. Much of the migration to Bluesky is being driven by Twitter, after all.

Online safety as a service. I like it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com