Honestly, I don’t think a message board has to have one. If a mod is powertripping, then why would you want to be a part of the community? If they’re not, then you’re probably not a good fit for the community and the mod doesn’t have to deal with trolls and angry back-and-forth’s.
That isn’t to say what Reddit did isn’t wrong. They established that system and they have a culture of appeals. Suddenly removing that isn’t really fair from a “social contract” or whatever perspective.
To make sure nonsensical posts, for example from tankies, get countered.
Why are any of us entitled to that though? If they don’t want us around then they can show us the door. To use (at least to me) a better example: why should LGBT communities have to allow people to debate them on whether or not it’s a choice? If they don’t want to, they shouldn’t have to. They may just want a corner to be together and chat.
We aren’t entitled to a debate if people don’t want to participate you know?
For one thing this is why echo chambers are dangerous. They have real world implications. For another though, there’s a difference between a debate and downright trolling or inciting behavior regardless of topic. Conflating the two is kind of disingenuous.
And if you don’t want to debate you don’t put that information on a public forum because debate is literally a baked in feature of public forums. That part of the reason they exist. You’re putting something out into public. It doesn’t just belong to you anymore/doesn’t just affect you anymore. That’s literally the basis for a lot of civil rights laws and why you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
You can’t just say a stereotype or something racist in public. What should in theory be happening is people of the LGBTQ should have the same protections under the law (anti-discrimination) as other protected groups get.
If the community is founded on that as a rule (no discrimination) and the comment is in violation that’s one thing. Ban people. Do what you need to to follow the rules, enforce the rule, and protect the community. But at the same time discourse in a community isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Do you not want nonsensical posts on your LGBTQ communities about “gay frog water” or whatever to face discourse? Do you not want people in the community to counter anyone bold enough to claim that as fact?
I’m not conflating so much as saying the line between them can be incredibly thin and hard to find. Additionally, some people are ignorant/hard headed/saying horrible things but they’re also completely unaware of the issue so where do you say “that’s enough”? Some people also hide behind rules and weaponize speech so they can use it as cudgel to cause issues in a community. It is exhausting dealing with these people sometimes and some communities just don’t want to, which I think is their prerogative!
I get why my stance is getting pushback. I just think ultimately it’s up to a community how much they want to deal with friction. Some people don’t. That’s fine!
Communities can be built to be insular and require things of their members that would allow for what you seem to want but that involves a time investment to vet users and essentially make the community read only for people who aren’t members. That comes with a whole host of other problems but it is doable.
Protest is a fundamental part of a functioning government, a functioning society, and a functioning community. I’ve been a mod on queer forums, and I always gave people a way to argue their case so long as they were engaging in respectful debate. I would tell people the boundaries and make sure they followed them. For example, if someone wants to say I’m not really nonbinary, I’ll argue the point with them because it’s my duty as a community leader, but I will establish they must gender me correctly and not use slurs for the duration of the debate, even if they disagree. They’re welcome to make their disagreement while respecting me, and usually they couldn’t manage that balance and I banned them. They would run out of patience before I did. It is absolutely essential that community moderators have an abundance of patience.
But not everyone wants to mod that community and not every community wants that debate to be happening. I am very grateful for your work and I have run communities that encourage discussion as well, but it’s not really a moral imperative or legal requirement or anything. Every community has its own culture, tone, rules, expectations, etc.
Again, I think it’s great that you run a community that operates like that and I think those discussions are very important and good for our society. Thank you for doing it, truly. But not every single Internet community has to allow extensive debate.
You and I have very different ideas about the moral responsibilities of people in authority. I think it’s essential that leaders be held to a higher standard in all cases.
I guess, it’s all good. I just feel like if I ran a PTSD board I shouldn’t have to allow folks who deliberately trigger people under the guise of debate and such because they “follow the rules.” I’m not saying that you would allow that, I just think that is much more at the forefront for me. I really do respect your position and I’m glad we have you running communities.
Oh yeah I don’t allow that sort of thing. I let people be harder on me as a leader than I’d let them be to people I’m responsible for protecting. If I’m to be worthy of power within a community then I have to be willing and able to advocate for the community. That means taking zero tolerance towards attacks on others, and embodying the community’s best values to the face of those who disagree. I always give troublemakers clear requirements for remaining in the community if that’s what they want. Protest is essential to social health, but it must be done without hate, and it’s better for animosity to be directed towards leaders than members.
It doesn’t have to have a fair appeals policy, but an instance that has an appeals policy is one that you would probably want to join more. So an instance should have a fair appeals policy, because that’s what the users who use the instance want - assuming the instance wants users.
As for what reddit did, there’s a lot of pulling the rug out that you’re casually ignoring. Reddit is what it is because of the users that contributed to it. In spite of Huffman talking about “their dataset”, they don’t actually own the data - it belongs to the users, reddit merely has a license.
Now, reddit is trying to change the rules - as a user, you’re no longer in charge of the subreddit you created and became moderator of anymore, you’re expected to serve “will of the users” (as defined by reddit admin), the users you attracted to the house you built. Reddit was founded on the idea “if you don’t like it, make your own space, and users will flock towards the better one”.
Reddit changed the moderator code of conduct. And yet, if you strictly apply the moderator code of conduct as they sometimes do, it completely undermines many of the bans that reddit admin also enforce. They’re hypocrits, now all they want is to exploit everyone that put them where they are.
If a mod is powertripping, then why would you want to be a part of the community?
Because the size of a community matters, and they’re not fungible. Back on reddit, my city’s subreddit was run by power-tripping mods. Sure, I could try to create an alternative – and somebody actually did – but it had multiple orders of magnitudes fewer users than the original sub and almost nobody would actually see what you posted there, so what’s the fucking point?
The entire reason I wanted to comment in the original sub was to try to politically persuade and influence people in my city. Censoring me from that sub was extremely effective even if alternatives theoretically existed.
Well, I don’t use Reddit anymore – it has joined the list of oligarch-owned shit that I’m boycotting (along with Facebook and Twitter). And yes, I do participate in local politics IRL.
But that still doesn’t invalidate what I wrote. The fact is that these platforms have too much fucking power as de-facto replacements for the public forum, and whether you refuse to use them or you get kicked out from them, it marginalizes you in a very real way that affects the real world. That’s a problem even if the possibility exists to go commune with other rejects on a platform the majority don’t give a shit about.
Not to mention, if I had a nickel for every real-world event hosted by a real-world local government, community, or activist organization that I missed because it was only advertised on Facebook, I’d have a big pile of nickels.
Oh I completely agree these platforms have too much power. Zero argument here. I’m just saying on an individual basis you have other options. But yeah i get what you’re saying
Honestly, I don’t think a message board has to have one. If a mod is powertripping, then why would you want to be a part of the community? If they’re not, then you’re probably not a good fit for the community and the mod doesn’t have to deal with trolls and angry back-and-forth’s.
That isn’t to say what Reddit did isn’t wrong. They established that system and they have a culture of appeals. Suddenly removing that isn’t really fair from a “social contract” or whatever perspective.
Example: To make sure nonsensical posts, for example from tankies, get countered.
Same example: I an not supposed to disrupt their little get-together-with-bullshit.
Why are any of us entitled to that though? If they don’t want us around then they can show us the door. To use (at least to me) a better example: why should LGBT communities have to allow people to debate them on whether or not it’s a choice? If they don’t want to, they shouldn’t have to. They may just want a corner to be together and chat.
We aren’t entitled to a debate if people don’t want to participate you know?
For one thing this is why echo chambers are dangerous. They have real world implications. For another though, there’s a difference between a debate and downright trolling or inciting behavior regardless of topic. Conflating the two is kind of disingenuous.
And if you don’t want to debate you don’t put that information on a public forum because debate is literally a baked in feature of public forums. That part of the reason they exist. You’re putting something out into public. It doesn’t just belong to you anymore/doesn’t just affect you anymore. That’s literally the basis for a lot of civil rights laws and why you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
You can’t just say a stereotype or something racist in public. What should in theory be happening is people of the LGBTQ should have the same protections under the law (anti-discrimination) as other protected groups get.
If the community is founded on that as a rule (no discrimination) and the comment is in violation that’s one thing. Ban people. Do what you need to to follow the rules, enforce the rule, and protect the community. But at the same time discourse in a community isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Do you not want nonsensical posts on your LGBTQ communities about “gay frog water” or whatever to face discourse? Do you not want people in the community to counter anyone bold enough to claim that as fact?
I’m not conflating so much as saying the line between them can be incredibly thin and hard to find. Additionally, some people are ignorant/hard headed/saying horrible things but they’re also completely unaware of the issue so where do you say “that’s enough”? Some people also hide behind rules and weaponize speech so they can use it as cudgel to cause issues in a community. It is exhausting dealing with these people sometimes and some communities just don’t want to, which I think is their prerogative!
I get why my stance is getting pushback. I just think ultimately it’s up to a community how much they want to deal with friction. Some people don’t. That’s fine!
Communities can be built to be insular and require things of their members that would allow for what you seem to want but that involves a time investment to vet users and essentially make the community read only for people who aren’t members. That comes with a whole host of other problems but it is doable.
Protest is a fundamental part of a functioning government, a functioning society, and a functioning community. I’ve been a mod on queer forums, and I always gave people a way to argue their case so long as they were engaging in respectful debate. I would tell people the boundaries and make sure they followed them. For example, if someone wants to say I’m not really nonbinary, I’ll argue the point with them because it’s my duty as a community leader, but I will establish they must gender me correctly and not use slurs for the duration of the debate, even if they disagree. They’re welcome to make their disagreement while respecting me, and usually they couldn’t manage that balance and I banned them. They would run out of patience before I did. It is absolutely essential that community moderators have an abundance of patience.
But not everyone wants to mod that community and not every community wants that debate to be happening. I am very grateful for your work and I have run communities that encourage discussion as well, but it’s not really a moral imperative or legal requirement or anything. Every community has its own culture, tone, rules, expectations, etc.
Again, I think it’s great that you run a community that operates like that and I think those discussions are very important and good for our society. Thank you for doing it, truly. But not every single Internet community has to allow extensive debate.
You and I have very different ideas about the moral responsibilities of people in authority. I think it’s essential that leaders be held to a higher standard in all cases.
I guess, it’s all good. I just feel like if I ran a PTSD board I shouldn’t have to allow folks who deliberately trigger people under the guise of debate and such because they “follow the rules.” I’m not saying that you would allow that, I just think that is much more at the forefront for me. I really do respect your position and I’m glad we have you running communities.
Oh yeah I don’t allow that sort of thing. I let people be harder on me as a leader than I’d let them be to people I’m responsible for protecting. If I’m to be worthy of power within a community then I have to be willing and able to advocate for the community. That means taking zero tolerance towards attacks on others, and embodying the community’s best values to the face of those who disagree. I always give troublemakers clear requirements for remaining in the community if that’s what they want. Protest is essential to social health, but it must be done without hate, and it’s better for animosity to be directed towards leaders than members.
It doesn’t have to have a fair appeals policy, but an instance that has an appeals policy is one that you would probably want to join more. So an instance should have a fair appeals policy, because that’s what the users who use the instance want - assuming the instance wants users.
As for what reddit did, there’s a lot of pulling the rug out that you’re casually ignoring. Reddit is what it is because of the users that contributed to it. In spite of Huffman talking about “their dataset”, they don’t actually own the data - it belongs to the users, reddit merely has a license.
Now, reddit is trying to change the rules - as a user, you’re no longer in charge of the subreddit you created and became moderator of anymore, you’re expected to serve “will of the users” (as defined by reddit admin), the users you attracted to the house you built. Reddit was founded on the idea “if you don’t like it, make your own space, and users will flock towards the better one”.
Reddit changed the moderator code of conduct. And yet, if you strictly apply the moderator code of conduct as they sometimes do, it completely undermines many of the bans that reddit admin also enforce. They’re hypocrits, now all they want is to exploit everyone that put them where they are.
Because the size of a community matters, and they’re not fungible. Back on reddit, my city’s subreddit was run by power-tripping mods. Sure, I could try to create an alternative – and somebody actually did – but it had multiple orders of magnitudes fewer users than the original sub and almost nobody would actually see what you posted there, so what’s the fucking point?
The entire reason I wanted to comment in the original sub was to try to politically persuade and influence people in my city. Censoring me from that sub was extremely effective even if alternatives theoretically existed.
But your city has other communities on other platforms and local social meetups. You don’t have to use Reddit.
Well, I don’t use Reddit anymore – it has joined the list of oligarch-owned shit that I’m boycotting (along with Facebook and Twitter). And yes, I do participate in local politics IRL.
But that still doesn’t invalidate what I wrote. The fact is that these platforms have too much fucking power as de-facto replacements for the public forum, and whether you refuse to use them or you get kicked out from them, it marginalizes you in a very real way that affects the real world. That’s a problem even if the possibility exists to go commune with other rejects on a platform the majority don’t give a shit about.
Not to mention, if I had a nickel for every real-world event hosted by a real-world local government, community, or activist organization that I missed because it was only advertised on Facebook, I’d have a big pile of nickels.
Oh I completely agree these platforms have too much power. Zero argument here. I’m just saying on an individual basis you have other options. But yeah i get what you’re saying