Free Speech and Offensive Content

submitted by fschmidt from self.nonmorons

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

IMO, you might want to consider skipping this "MOST" idea altogether for several reasons....

Conserve your energy for the rest of life's hurdles. Don't stop thinking about it, keep outlining and refining it, but only build it when you actually need it. (And make it so that you can add more than just 3 options (ideally everything could be modular and expandable)).

What would you do when the SJWs and/or bots decide to swarm the place and artificially tip the "MOST" ratios? All tech solutions will be subverted by more tech solutions in this war. This is just one never ending battlefront.

IMO, you should cultivate a trusted team to co-moderate/co-admin any forum - and draft up a manifest/constitution that lays out your fundamental concepts. Always refer to it when discussing new things or forum justice. Preferably something better than the pyramid of debate which IMO is a terrific guide (we need MANY more guides like it), but it's a terrible arbitrary rule. Make as few rules as possible, but all very clear.

IMO, there are much better things to work on. You could draft up a list of things to improve SaidIt code (like this developed and abandoned a couple years ago), then ask the community for their top issues, then pick the top 3 to focus and work on. We (d3rr and I) dropped the ball on this one and haven't picked it back up, but I still believe this system could work very well - and not just for coding or SaidIt. (See also: /s/Organizing)

That's just off the top of my head.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't want admins controlling this. The feature is basically for modern scum, and I (the admin) am unqualified to judge what modern scum can tolerate.

    Unlike downvotes, this would only affect one feature (MOST) that you don't have to use. Downvotes actually kind of make sense for modern scum, but they don't make sense for reasonable people. So my proposal gives the appropriate features to each audience.

    I already covered the bots issue.

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    Reddit has already shown us how absolutely evil downvotes are.

    IFIFY:
    Reddit has already shown us how absolutely evil downvotes subtracted from upvotes are.

    YouTube shows the up AND downvotes for a very useful ratio. Oddly, not in the comments. And YouTube censorship is another problem altogether.

    What you could do instead is have a bigotry toggle for each sub. Admins could toggle the bigotry tag on for subs that allow bigotry and users could filter out subs with the bigotry tag if they choose to.

    This would be fantastic for any and all metatags. But that's an entirely different rewrite beast.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      While I don't care about the the free speech or bigotry aspects, because I don't need protective safe spaces, I do recognize that I also don't want gore on my screen while I'm eating. More importantly I would love for things to be more organized, even if most people are lazy and won't bother much with new systems, at least for a while. It would be worth determining what people are actually interested in using metatags for - and of course figuring out how to theoretically best apply it so that perhaps the code jockeys can implement it.

      I'm guessing metatags might be akin to flair. Perhaps they can just improve flair labels somehow.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

      IMO, you might want to consider skipping this "MOST" idea altogether for several reasons....

      oh my god, you said no to a time suck idea. maybe there's hope for you yet.

      [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

      Maybe.

      I share a lot of good and bad ideas. I try not to share too many ugly ideas, but I do get them, so maybe I've been saying no to timesuck ideas all along but you didn't know it.

      [–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      [sideways glance at that sub ownership list]

      lol

      [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      True.

      I got rid of many subs, great, good, and meh, and kept many undeveloped ugly ducklings that could become something beautiful - if I don't kill them by neglect.

      [–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      only build it when you actually need it.

      The issue of free speech and offensive content is an immediate issue. If this isn't addressed from the beginning, the site will immediately get a bad reputation and will never take off.

      What would you do when the SJWs and/or bots decide to swarm the place and artificially tip the "MOST" ratios? All tech solutions will be subverted by more tech solutions in this war. This is just one never ending battlefront.

      You have a point here. But I don't need a perfect solution, just good enough to get the site off the ground. Maybe I should only count subs muted by users qualified to start subs. This would make it difficult enough to subvert the system that the enemy wouldn't bother until the site becomes big, and then it wouldn't matter as much.

      IMO, you should cultivate a trusted team to co-moderate/co-admin any forum - and draft up a manifest/constitution that lays out your fundamental concepts.

      This is exactly what I want to avoid. I don't want editorializing by the management. In my proposal, the commons is just ALL and MOST. ALL is purely free speech, no censorship. MOST is mildly censored by users. Everything else is outside the commons, so is controlled by owners. I see no need for site-wide moderation (except for things like illegal content, porn, etc.).

      IMO, there are much better things to work on. You could draft up a list of things to improve SaidIt code (like this developed and abandoned a couple years ago), then ask the community for their top issues, then pick the top 3 to focus and work on.

      This is one area where I will be a dictator. I will make a "FreedIt" sub where I will welcome suggestions, but I will decide what needs to be done because it will be my site. Of course the code is shared with SaidIt, so I have no control over code requests coming from SaidIt. But I will choose the code requests coming from FreedIt.

      [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      The issue of free speech and offensive content is an immediate issue.

      Yes.

      I feel like we need to step back a moment and cover a couple things so I better know what your purpose is.

      SaidIt exists. It's safe to say you want to try to run things better somehow. Having a backup forum is good and decentralizes things too.

      SaidIt is not "free-speech" but it is for free-thinking and truth-seeking. I think it's pretty free, but maybe I'm missing something. You want more free-speech than is here. I don't know what you can actually expect other than bad behaviour. Personally, I don't have time to waste on uncreative trolls, with lame senses of humour, and apparently you don't either or you wouldn't have blocked me for whatever tickled your snowflake sensibilities. Yet, ironically you're willing to allow gutter-dwellers in.

      Are there other fundamental reasons why you're bothering to start up with this old code?

      If this isn't addressed from the beginning, the site will immediately get a bad reputation and will never take off.

      This seems very rational and plausible.

      I too want to hammer out as much as possible in writing (with the community) before I even open our Lemmy forum. This winter I'll be focusing on our Projex.Wiki for any kind of project, organizing resistance, my LeverMind Variety Show, and of course for developing and sharing decentralized forum ideas. Just as Creative Commons has 4 licenses (needs 9 IMO) for content rights, IMO we should co-develop plug-n-play "Forum Codes" that quickly, easily, and clearly define your type of forum. Naturally this would be for quick reference and people could read further in greater detail, and of course the forums using could draft custom amendments for specific details, and help improve the "Forum Codes" with upgraded versions over the years to come.

      IMO, this could help future forums and users cover a lot of initial communications in a short time.

      You have a point here. But I don't need a perfect solution, just good enough to get the site off the ground. Maybe I should only count subs muted by users qualified to start subs. This would make it difficult enough to subvert the system that the enemy wouldn't bother until the site becomes big, and then it wouldn't matter as much.

      Have you considered a community sub-creation process?

      I don't want a chaos of subs on our project. I don't need to dictate what goes either. I aim to have community come up with the subs/topics/communities/feeds/etc - together and vote in whatever they like AND develop a consistent naming convention (including proper capitals, a pet peeve).

      Orderly subs might not be the ultimate solution but it might help. There's the "broken windows" and "littered subway" kind of studies about how people tend to keep a place tidy.

      IMO, you should cultivate a trusted team

      This is exactly what I want to avoid. I don't want editorializing by the management.

      I don't either. Then CLEARLY define their roles and limitations. Also make it so that common users have appeal processes as well as processes to directly address the community, the team, you, etc. And have the team watching each other. The ultimate goal is that everyone is essentially on even ground being treated fairly. The only difference is that some have earned their status to weigh in with some weight on the final outcome. Because it is all transparent, the limitations are outlined, there shouldn't be much room for abuse. I would hope.

      I see no need for site-wide moderation (except for things like illegal content, porn, etc.).

      Those exceptions still require vigilance.

      Sounds like an invitation for trouble.

      This is one area where I will be a dictator. I will make a "FreedIt" sub where I will welcome suggestions, but I will decide what needs to be done because it will be my site. Of course the code is shared with SaidIt, so I have no control over code requests coming from SaidIt. But I will choose the code requests coming from FreedIt.

      Not just your site, it's also your time and energy, as well as interests and motivation. But it's not just all about you. It's also about community - and balance.

      IMO, it would make sense to collaborate with SaidIt before you fork things up.

      [–]fschmidt[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      SaidIt is not "free-speech" but it is for free-thinking and truth-seeking. I think it's pretty free, but maybe I'm missing something. You want more free-speech than is here. I don't know what you can actually expect other than bad behaviour. Personally, I don't have time to waste on uncreative trolls, with lame senses of humour, and apparently you don't either or you wouldn't have blocked me for whatever tickled your snowflake sensibilities. Yet, ironically you're willing to allow gutter-dwellers in.

      Maybe thinking about the difference between capitalism and socialism would make my purpose clearer. SaidIt is like socialism. The SaidIt admins set policy for the whole site, so sub mods don't really own the subs. The site has uniform (site) government mandated standards. What I want is more like capitalism. Sub mods should really own their subs. I should be able to ban morons from /s/nonmorons. I should be able praise God for killing the population of Sodom and Gomorrah. But both of these things are against SaidIt policy, so I can't do them here.

      Are there other fundamental reasons why you're bothering to start up with this old code?

      Using old code is the path of least resistance. I tried to find someone to develop new code, but this failed.

      I too want to hammer out as much as possible in writing (with the community) before I even open our Lemmy forum. This winter I'll be focusing on our Projex.Wiki for any kind of project, organizing resistance, my LeverMind Variety Show, and of course for developing and sharing decentralized forum ideas. Just as Creative Commons has 4 licenses (needs 9 IMO) for content rights, IMO we should co-develop plug-n-play "Forum Codes" that quickly, easily, and clearly define your type of forum. Naturally this would be for quick reference and people could read further in greater detail, and of course the forums using could draft custom amendments for specific details, and help improve the "Forum Codes" with upgraded versions over the years to come.

      SaidIt isn't a forum, it is a forum platform. Each sub is a forum. So I am not sure if what you mean here is "forum codes" or "forum platform codes".

      Have you considered a community sub-creation process?

      No. Whatever SaidIt is doing now seems to work fine.

      This is exactly what I want to avoid. I don't want editorializing by the management.

      I don't either. Then CLEARLY define their roles and limitations.

      This is something I don't have to worry about at the beginning since I will do everything at the beginning. I will worry about this later.

      IMO, it would make sense to collaborate with SaidIt before you fork things up.

      d3rr controls the code base, so there is no risk of that.

      [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Maybe thinking about the difference between capitalism and socialism would make my purpose clearer. SaidIt is like socialism. The SaidIt admins set policy for the whole site, so sub mods don't really own the subs. The site has uniform (site) government mandated standards. What I want is more like capitalism. Sub mods should really own their subs. I should be able to ban morons from /s/nonmorons. I should be able praise God for killing the population of Sodom and Gomorrah. But both of these things are against SaidIt policy, so I can't do them here.

      Now I see. A fair comparison, but it has issues.

      Perhaps it's worth examining from another angle. There are a lot of issues with subs. Only 2 votes = weak qualitative data. Lack of metatags. No flags. Etc etc etc.

      Another issue is that there are several TYPES of subs. Topical subs, category subs, community subs, commons subs, private subs, genre subs, fan subs, blog subs, bot auto-feed subs (potentially), etc.

      It seems to me like you want a cross between a public and private sub as they are on SaidIt - your subjective best of both worlds.

      Perhaps you need to create other classes of subs with clear labels so there's no misunderstanding with users and mods and functionality of each sub.

      Personally I think of all of SaidIt as a community and the subs as topical places to file specific content. I know others think differently.

      Using old code is the path of least resistance. I tried to find someone to develop new code, but this failed.

      On the plus side, d3rr was thinking Docker can help SaidIt survive with the outdated Python.

      SaidIt isn't a forum, it is a forum platform. Each sub is a forum. So I am not sure if what you mean here is "forum codes" or "forum platform codes".

      I was talking about site-wide platform fundamentals (rules, guides, social management systems, etc). (And of course, each feed can add on their own custom addons.) I was talking about creating internet-wide standards for platforms, especially decentralized platforms, for easy navigation and understanding. From deplorables to SJWs, from free-speech to heavily censored, akin to a political compass, but with much more. Even if websites don't officially adopt the standards we can still collectively describe them and communicate clearly among ourselves.

      No. Whatever SaidIt is doing now seems to work fine.

      Chaotic subs are not fine.

      This is something I don't have to worry about at the beginning since I will do everything at the beginning. I will worry about this later.

      You literally said, "If this isn't addressed from the beginning, the site will immediately get a bad reputation and will never take off.

      I'm getting mixed signals about your free speech and moderation ideas, and what's a priority or not.

      IMO, it would make sense to collaborate with SaidIt before you fork things up.

      d3rr controls the code base, so there is no risk of that.

      Yes. He's a very agreeable and sensible person. It seems to me you should collaborate rather than be lone cowboys. Find someone else and the pardners will become a posse.