14
Moderation + support on this instance
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy.nz Support
346 readers
2 users here now
Ask your questions here
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Hey thanks for raising this. We absolutely need moderation and moderators. This is something we will need to work on together as a community - both a Lemmy.nz and Lemmyverse community.
The (new, reddit-flooded) Lemmyverse has already had it's first CSAM widely federated, which was reported here as well as on large communities. The community it was posted to didn't have someone online to resolve it so it stayed up for hours (and was embedded in an innocent looking post). We can ban or remove posts from our instance, but this doesn't remove it for other instances. That only works if the host instance removes it. But ultimately we can't deny we are affected by this, and possibly a higher risk since most of the large instances require users to apply for an account while we currently have open registration (which if things go bad, may mean the other instances stop federating with us).
I'm the only admin so far, but this is not sustainable. We also want extra moderators around to handle things within their communities - including users nominated as responsible for building their community. But we need more users with the ability to moderate, even if this is just to remove posts we obviously don't want here such as the above.
As for more general moderation, this is something that we as a community will need to work together on. I'd like to try an approach similar to Beehaw.org. They have many admin posts talking about this but here is one that outlines what their vision is.
It's long, so you can be forgiven for not reading it, but basically it says that instead of having lots of rules that someone can then be a dick and point to the rules saying they aren't technically breaking any rules, instead you should have fewer, more general rules then encourage discussion in the community as to whether it's the kind of content they want to have in their community. They have disabled downvotes, with the idea being that you can't get away with downvoting a post you don't like, you have to actually have a discussion. I'm open to doing this here if it's what most people want, but I suspect it may not get a lot of support and that's ok too.
So that brings me to me next point - we do have rules, or at least a rule: don't be a dick. Rather than removing content that isn't consistent with the environment we would like, instead we should call out users that are posting content that don't align with our values, or in some instances a private message may be more appropriate.
I'm keen to hear other's thoughts on this approach :)
And another note - we, and the core fediverse nodes we interact with, are not mature enough to handle NSFW content. It's too much of a legal and moderation headache to handle at this stage, so please don't post it. This may change in future depending on how we grow as a community (both local and lemmyverse), but I expect that NSFW content on Lemmy will probably end up in dedicated instances (there are already some).
As for donations, I've had fediservices.nz approach me, and they have provisioned a VPS for us to use. The migration will happen probably in the next 12 hours, and will require downtime. I'm hoping this can be kept to under an hour. If it's looking bad, I'll probably roll back to this server and try again later. So anyway, if you want to donate to running the server then you can donate here: https://opencollective.com/nz-federated-services
You might want to have a chat with some of the people who have been running smaller Mastodon servers (in NZ and elsewhere).
One of the big problems on Mastodon over the last few months has been people from certain marginalised groups not feeling welcome, because they receive a torrent of hate speech as soon as they arrive. I've mostly heard this said by Black American communities, but I imagine it's happening for others too.
I think this is an inherent problem with the kind of approach you're suggesting (i.e. let people say what they want, so long as they're not breaking any laws, and let debate/downvoting sort it out). It's all very well for people who are not marginalised, or can otherwise withstand abuse due to their position in society dealing with that kind of activity. But for people who are going to be a target, it basically means they can't participate.
Another thing to think about is the old adage "if you let one nazi drink in your bar, you now have a nazi bar". Once certain extremists realise they can participate on a server like this (i.e. one not set up specifically to cater to them) you will find there is a huge influx. In their minds, being allowed on a general server is a gold mine.. they can spout hatred, not have it deleted, and potentially recruit new people. I know Reddit is far from perfect, but before they banned some of the big Trump subs, it was way worse.
Just to be clear, not saying there should be extremely heavy handed moderation, but I think the laissez faire approach you are suggesting is not likely to work long term. It might be pretty quiet here now, but Lemmy is already growing rapidly, so I don't think it will be for long. Better to have something in place to deal with those kinds of problems before you need it. (Just my opinion anyway).
In my head, it works the opposite. If you have a list of things people can't do, they will wiggle their way around them to still be an asshole. If your rules aren't explicit then they can't be the "actually" guy.
If you just delete any posts saying hateful things, then you get marginalised people trying to participate, they get notifications saying someone has replied with something hurtful, then it gets removed and they just have to accept there are not nice people in the community. Worse, people may turn to DMs.
On the other hand, if someone says something hurtful, and 20 others reply explaining why it wasn't a nice thing to say, then they get to see that the view is not widely held but hidden, and instead most people do not hold that view.
As an example, in one of our first posts here, the OP used a derogatory term in a common colloquial way, someone replied with a link explaining why it was a problem, then the OP apologised and edited their post.
This is how I hope for things to work. In practice, many people will double down or be trolling, and we don't have to stand for that. But with my naivety I'd like there to be a chance for redemption.
I think some rules are needed e g. No hate speech, no threats of violence, no doxxing or hacking, no unsolicited sexual stuff, no illegal things, no animal cruelty or child abuse videos, no scams or spam, no advocacy of violence, harm, or self harm, no destroying the functioning of the community, Nazis can go fuck themselves, etc... The usual things so that there's clarity for mods and users
But also I think some general rules like don't be an asshole, or these rules are not exclusive mod discretion will be applied as needed to keep this place safe and enjoyable
So the thing is, the more rules you have, the easier it is for someone to be antagonistic and defend their actions with "but it's not against the rules". I highly recommend checking out the Beehaw post I linked, as well as reading their side bar links.
This blog post also also helps to explain things: https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/
Almost all the things you mention are covered by the existing rule: "don't be a dick".
My personal opinion (at this very second, before it has become an issue) is that we should consider having hate speech, threats or advocacy of violence, and nazis stay visible, and having people call them out on it. If it's trolling, we can block them and remove them, but in the first instance it should be the start of a conversation.
Animal cruelty and child abuse - these I believe are obvious that they are not welcome and should be removed on sight, the user permanently banned, and the event reported to the appropriate authorities. We shouldn't need a rule to do what is obviously the right thing - but in either case we do have a rule that covers this (the only rule).
Harm or self harm - we can't hope to be a mental help forum, and this raises legal liability issues (something discussed by other instances). But I don't think we can have a one size fits all rule here, our approach to this should evolve over time.
"Destroying the functioning of the community" - this seems very subjective, but in any case I think this starts with a conversation, and if it's clear it's a troll then at that point we can take action.
I think I addressed each of your items but in any case I think you get the idea of what I'd like to attempt. That is, conversations instead of ban hammers. And encouraging users to call people out if they don't align with our values. But anyone engaging in good faith should be guided on what we expect here.
The obvious question is "how do we know what is allowed if there aren't specific rules": if you think it's on the edge, then please don't post it. If someone posts something that doesn't sit right with you, call them out on it. You are also welcome to report it, but I do encourage discussion as a starting point. Treat this like you would a real life community - for the most part when it comes to personal interactions, our laws are black and white: don't kill them, steal their stuff, etc. We don't need a law that says don't say nazi shit, because if you say nazi shit then either someone will call you out on it or people won't want to interact with you. I'd like this online community to work the same way, and will advocate for that goal as long as it feels achievable (I'm watching Beehaw closely).
The next obvious question is "if there's no defined rules, and @Dave is the only admin/moderator, how do we know he won't let the power go to his head"? I don't want this to be a dictatorship. I'd like to involve more people as mods and admins, and build a group where we can discuss cases and share differing opinions to decide on appropriate actions as a group. This won't happen overnight, but I do hope we will get there.
I was part of a hacker space and the one rule was: “Be excellent to each other”
It worked quite well having one rule.
Please keep the up/down votes. 😊
The “Bill and Ted Paradigm”. You’re forgetting the most important part though: “Party on dudes.”
I think this is ok, but it assumes everyone is commenting in good faith, and that everyone agrees on the definition of “being a dick” already. For a small community (ie under 10k subs) it will work fine but I don’t think it will scale beyond that. Maybe this current system will work for the medium term at least.
Here in NZ there is the HDCA, which lays out some basic rules in law about how people should conduct themselves online (though they aren’t strictly enforced). Might help provide a guide at least.
There are laws around breaching court suppression orders, and those are enforced a bit more strictly. Mods need to keep on top of this stuff to make sure you (the publisher) don’t get fined. I’m not sure how your obligations are affected by federation, but you definitely want to make sure court orders aren’t being breached by content accessible on your instance.
We are small, and it will be good to see to what level it scales. As I mentioned, I am watching Beehaw closely as they are trying this approach and are the second largest instance, likely to hit your 10k threshold in the next week (though they are actively denying new users from signing up).
The HDCA you link is pretty basic. I don't think anyone would argue we would want any of that, and I think it all falls under the existing rule. In fact, I think our rule covers far more than that list.
Breaching court suppression orders also falls under our rule. My understanding of reporting is that if you report a post from another instance from here, then both instance moderators get a report. We can block a post from another instance, then it won't show up here.
I think the general idea I'm getting at is that we as a community will decide over time what is or isn't acceptable, but some things are black and white. This is not intended to be an unmoderated wild west instance where we allow things not allowed on more mainstream social media, instead it should be an inviting place, and we don't get that from moderators behind the scenes deleting stuff that seems non-inviting based on their opinion.
Note that the moderator log is open to anyone, you can see this by clicking the "Modlog" link at the bottom of any page. However, this is federated, so shows moderator activities from communities on other instances that we federate with. I'd like to be very transparent about moderation and not to be ban-heavy but instead encourage the discussion you'd see in real-life communities.
Harm or self harm e.g. go kill yourself, or someone should put a bullet in them, or here's a guide to how to be anorexic without getting caught.
I agree with you on the problem of the rules lawyers who try to argue that what's not specifically forbidden must be allowed, but I also think that a set of defined unacceptable behaviour is not just for determining whom to smite but also for telling new people what kind of place they've found.
When I was admin of a place long ago there was a list of stuff that merited instaban and then the additional meta rule which was formatted as a warning "If you create problems here even if it's not specifically against the rules we will do something about you" which yes very subjective but also fair warning for people like the guy who came to sealion every political thread, and the rather unpleasant person who liked to reply to people's pet posts with stories about how she killed her hamster.
I think calling someone out on this is more effective than silently banning someone. It's more transparent, and shows that we aren't willing to put up with it. In the case of the last one, probably we would want to remove it and send a DM to them explaining why it's not acceptable. In this case, the harm in leaving it up outweighs the benefit of transparency.
I'm not sure that we've quite worked out what kind of place this is. But if you have a suggestion that could sum it up in a sentence I'm all ears. However, I don't think we need to say "no threatening, no doxxing, no telling people to go kill themselves" as I think by listing this you are telling people it's a place that needs these common sense rules because people often aren't able to use common sense so need it written down. I'm not sure that's the place we want or the impression we want to give.
Yeah fair enough.
I can't say what everyone else wants this place to be, but I'd like it to be a welcoming place where people associated with Wellington and Wellington region can socialise, make friends, get support or recommendations, and discuss things relevant to living in or visiting Wellington.
But also I'd like some definition, if not specific rules then at least a kind of map of how things will be addressed. In part because not everyone who infringes means to do so, but also because some people can't parse an oblique warning.
I'd like to see how we go. When an issue (or potential issue) arises, either start the discussion yourself, or report it with a description of your concern. If we find the approach isn't working, we can adjust then. But before then I'd like to build up a team of moderators happy to use the discussion approach, and then as a team we can decide if more rules are necessary.
I think probably you are going to want to do a thread specifically for mod applications? I'd be willing to zap obvious spam scams and illegal things like csam on a when and as encountered basis but I don't really have the time or the mental bandwidth to commit to full discussion based modding, especially where the discussions might be time sensitive. Also I think probably we're both active in the same time zone while you'll probably want at least one ideally two people who can prevent mods are sleeping scenarios.
Yes, I think we are new enough it's difficult to approach people so I will do a mod application thread. I'll pick some people willing to try a discussion-based approach, and willing to join a mod matrix room to discuss things. Plus some others for obvious spam/illegal content removal, especially for covering other time zones.
Basically it sounds like an interpretation of common law. If the time and effort was available it would be a fascinating experiment to assign advocates and a random selection of users to make a ruling.
That does sounds interesting in theory, but in practice it may end up a bit like /r/AITA