Dan moved, see pinned tootStern in particular is well-known for erasing threads on their Facebook page that veer into territory even slightly critical (such as asking for code updates to abandoned games). Combine this with the sense of entitlement you often see in rich people, and you've got a recipe for a 1:1 ratio of Pinball/First Amendment threads.
This forum will be a case study unto itself!
Earlier on I talked about how targeted advertising is a scam from flim-flam men, and your best bet was to go for completely untargeted and really wide-reach advertising to find the people who don't yet know (or act like) they want your thing.
This article says that companies who turned off targeted ads don't notice any difference, and nearly all of the people who were targeted would have bought the thing anyway:
https://sparktoro.com/blog/what-if-performance-advertising-is-just-an-analytics-scam/
I saw someone had posted this link on Fedi earlier but I forget who it was. I remember coming across this site five years or so ago and absolutely inhaling it. In the time since I last had a look it's been updated:
http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/index.html
It's a study of forums for estranged parents - that is, forums full of people so horrible that their own kids disown them.
I'm posting this to the community moderation thread because the behaviour patterns of these sorts of estranged parents mesh so perfectly with the sorts of abusive behaviours that you have to warn your community members about.
This series of articles is ostensibly about parental abuse, but much of the content applies equally well to most emotional abusers.
Particularly useful for online community modulation is this list of dysfunctional beliefs at http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/dysfunctional-beliefs.html - here's a sampling:
* If one understands something, then one agrees with it. If I don’t agree with something, then I don’t understand it. If you don’t agree with me, then you don’t understand me, and can’t claim that you understand me until you agree with me.
* Emotions cause actions. When I feel something, I can’t not act on it.
Dysfunctional ideas about interacting in online spaces, ban if you see evidence of folks thinking this way:
* This website won't survive if I leave it.
* This website's norms don't work for me, so I will try to change those norms rather than fitting in or going to a different website.
* If a website's rule is insufficiently specific, then the important thing is to break it, or nearly break it, so that the admin will make it more specific.
* This website owes me for the time I spend on it.
* Power corrupts, so the moderators of a hobby website should be treated with the same disdain or distrust one would treat a millionaire politician or CEO.
* Moderators only become moderators because they want power over others.
Oof, sad news about Something Awful founder Lowtax.
Something Awful has been going through a messy and painful transformation, a kind of reckoning with its past self, and at some point I was gonna do a case study for this thread.
I've only just heard about Lowtax's suicide so it's probably not a great time to start that analysis, but in the moment this feels like a cautionary tale about deleting your old stuff so you can change.
Community Moderation Thread continued, a case study:
@[email protected] shows us the eventual end state of the hobby degradation dynamic I talked about earlier in this thread.
https://social.bau-ha.us/@aurora/107434889581265192
This starts with admins allowing forums to shift away from normal, everyday conversation about a hobby, and towards threads where people post pictures of the thing they bought today. Further in Aurora's thread are some counterexamples of still-viable groups.
ava vs. the universe ✨ (@[email protected])
trying to sell my old hifi setup and realizing that the stuff i bought for 1-10€ a piece on ebay 15 years ago is now worth over 500€ :blobfoxeyes:
All hobby communities are vulnerable to consumerist takeover, and the effects can spill out into the real world as we've seen here, inflating prices and cutting off new members apart from the very rich, cementing a self-reinforcing mechanism.
There is no saving a hobby community that has entered this downward spiral. Once a hobby becomes involved with financial speculation, it's a rich-getting-richer wasteland until the bubble bursts, which can take years.
Stopping a hobby from becoming taken over by the empty content of the rich is easy, but requires vigilance and community buy-in.
Establish in your CoC that posts amounting to no more than "Look at this thing I bought today" are spam, and will be treated as such. Talk about the hobby degradation phenomenon in your CoC so that people understand why it's a necessary rule; your members will help with enforcement if they're familiar with the alternative.
Moar online community moderation thread!
A browse through reddit's "hobbydrama" forum often yields cautionary tales that can illustrate What Not To Do, and here's a good write-up of Neopets' infiltration by NFT scammers:
https://old.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/pzmcy2/pet_site_game_neopets_introduces_nfts_burns/
The bit that caught my eye, the bit that made me think this belongs in the moderation thread rather than web3isgoinggreat or wherever, is the language the scammers use.
In this writeup we see Neopets invaded by NFTrolls who have spent so much time sniffing their own farts that it doesn't occur to them to code-switch; they chuck around 4chan words like "oldf**" thinking this is just how people talk.
Unmoderated, anonymous websites (here I say "anonymous" to mean places where you don't have strong visual differentiation between users) ruin your brain.
In places where the users are difficult to tell apart, and especially in places that attach numeric scores to socialization, people end up talking the same way. Heck, go browse that subreddit I just linked to, ordered by top; the posts all have the same rhythm, same style, same slang, even though they were written by allegedly different people.
Imagine a party full of people who are so close they talk alike, but aren't friends and don't actually know each other. WEIRD AND SCARY.
This is of course deliberate!
Everyone here knows that spyware companies invest billions into improving their programs to better spy on people and try to predict what people are gonna want to buy. Most people here know that targeted advertising doesn't actually work and it's all just a long con, but the folk who work at spyware companies like google and facebook etc have been - YES! - sniffing their own farts for so long that they're starting to honestly believe their own nonsense!
So when you've chucked billions towards paying some brogrammers to try and predict the behaviour of individual humans and still the best your program can do is show them adverts for a toothbrush they bought last week, if you're particularly sociopathic you might look at the other side of the equation:
Your program might give accurate guesses more often if the people it was spying on were easier to predict.
That's where we're at now: spyware companies have, after decades of trying, finally invented a square-shaped hole, and realised that it'd take many further billions to make that hole sufficiently people-shaped to actually work; now they reason it's cheaper to make a bigger hammer.
Hence facebook's reaction emojis; it's WAY easier to have the product choose from five emotional reactions than to try and parse emotion from a textual comment.
https://rixx.de/blog/on-running-a-mastodon-instance/
Adding on to my massive long online-community-management thread: Here's a great post from the admin of chaos.social on his experiences running a Mastodon instance along with @leah. There's overlap with running any kind of online community, but federated stuff has its own specific quirks that @rixx highlights nicely in this blog post. A worthwhile read if you're thinking of setting up a Mastodon server or any online space.
https://weirder.earth/@eldang/108211095983989977
Eldan Goldenberg (@[email protected])
Content warning: Moderation philosophy, from a retired mod
Meta bit in this thread: Elon Musk just bought twitter, so we may be about to witness what happens when a formerly-badly-moderated site deliberately turns off moderation.
We've seen this before loads of times, and it's predictable - the site fills up with toxic people who scare off first the normies and then each other and it collapses in on itself within months. But I don't believe we've ever seen it happen with a website as big as twitter. This is gonna be fascinating/horrifying to watch.
Here on Fedi we're also gonna get ourselves a big ol' dose of No Fountain, but I see @feditips and others REALLY GOING HARD on the "Write down and broadcast the unwritten social norms for preservation" thing, and I think fedi reminds people of forums and BBSes enough that they're remembering netiquette and dramabombs and site implosions from their own pasts, and taking measures to get the newbies thoroughly doused in Fedi Culture really quickly.
Fedi is very cool in a lot of ways
Big Long Online Community Moderation Thread time? Yes!
Had this conversation again:
Player: "Dan, can you make it so we can block people on Improbable Island?"
Me: "Why, who'd you wanna block?"
Player: "Oh this one jackass, he's been..." *very detailed description of subtly shady behaviour that would've flown right under the radar if they'd just blocked the jackass*
Me: *bans the jackass before they try it on someone else*
Should your website have a Block button? Still probably yeah
This article shows such a clear picture of how internet trolls are parasitic:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-truth-social/
Trolls can't operate without access to an audience that someone else has built, because they're too unlikeable to build their own. They want to leech off YOUR audience, and understand "free speech" to mean "free web hosting and a free, pre-built audience."
I just saw a twitter screenshot where someone used the slur that rhymes with "maggot," and hoo boy holy shit I knew twitter was bad but this is 101-level stuff they've neglected here.
Even the most amateurish PHPBB forum in 2001 knew that there are slurs that you shouldn't allow to be posted on your website because they can't be used for anything constructive or useful. Seriously twitter this is absolutely rudimentary stuff.
Quote from a toot posted elsewhere, regarding blocklists:
"How is this list to be regulated? By the number of votes? What if 99% of the submissions agree to ban a certain religion, or vegans, or economists who wear yellow shirts on Tuesday?"
This is a type of user you should ban straight away without engaging. Every single time I've seen this sort of post, it's from someone who gets banned from places a lot for being exhausting.
Nice little post here to add to this thread:
https://thagomizer.com/blog/2017/09/29/we-don-t-do-that-here.html
The "here" part of "we don't do that here" has special Culture Juice in it. You're not trying to change the whole world, that's hard; you're trying to make a nice little space in a website, and people can fit into the culture or they can not and go somewhere else instead. You're just trying to make a nice little bit of positive culture. Yoghurt pot sized like.
Remember earlier in this thread I talked about dramaslurping? Get your straws out and mosquito your way over to this deliciously festering puddle of How The Hell Did We Let This Get So Bad
https://cohost.org/staff/post/124903-community-guidelines
The gist: people were posting drawn child porn on cohost, and rather than banning those people immediately, cohost wrote a very long post about "working to implement a system to allow us to get user input on this area of policy"
Community Guidelines Update
hey folks, we’ve got a couple big trust and safety updates coming today, including some changes to the community guidelines [https://cohost.org/rc/content/community-guidelines]. we wanted to go over everything here for transparency about what we’re doing and why. first off, the community guidelines. we’ve gotten a lot of questions and reports on content that, while we considered to be borderline but permitted, was absolutely in a gray area in the written community guidelines. we had internally developed a set of policies that we were applying to the small number of cases that came up, but had not publicly announced the policies we were applying because of some open questions we still had. this was a bad call, and moving forward we’re going to be more transparent about areas of uncertainty and indecision in our policy. here’s a summary of the changes: * we’ve added clarifications to the section regarding child sexual exploitation material, and how it pertains to non-realistic depictions of minors, in an attempt to provide clarity and consistency for enforcement. * internally, we had been drawing the line at the prevailing legal definition of “realistic depictions,” which includes photographs/videos of actual human minors, or content difficult to distinguish from actual photographs/videos. * policy around non-realistic depictions, such as lolicon/shotacon, has not yet been finalized. we don’t want to implement a policy that the majority of users would feel uncomfortable with. we are currently working to implement a system to allow us to get user input on this area of policy. until such time, please refrain from posting it; up to this point, we have been asking people posting it to remove it pending a final policy decision. * we’ve added a new section clarifying and adding new rules around content warnings. * previously, content warnings were only strongly recommended for posts containing potentially sensitive content. in most cases, this is still true. however, we are now requiring CWs for certain types of content. * this policy change is accompanied by a technical change that prevents these CWs from showing up in unrelated tag pages. these posts will still show up on your dashboard (if you are following the poster), profile pages, and tag searches for any of the terms on the list. * the full list of mandatory content warnings can be found on our support site [https://help.antisoftware.club/support/solutions/articles/62000226150-mandatory-content-warnings]. this page is also linked from the community guidelines. * repeated failure to add mandatory content warnings, as well as attempts to circumvent the filtering system (such as by using numbers or symbols in place of letters), are considered bannable offenses. we don’t want to ban you so please be normal about this. the tag page change is live now. our motivation in this change is not to censor any types of allowed content, but to prevent certain types of sensitive content from showing up in large, more general tags. while we may make changes to this list in the future, all changes will come with a notice, as well as a grace period for users to start adding CWs to their posts. our goal is to provide a robust set of tools that allow everyone to customize their own experience to their level of comfort and safety. to support this, we are actively working on a system with which you will be able to completely hide posts that include CWs you never want to see and skip the clickthrough on CWs you do not need a warning for. these tools are being worked on in addition to general tag filtering tools. above all, we believe that you know your own preferences, limits, and triggers better than anyone else; our intent with these changes is to help you see the posts you want to see and none of what you don’t. we also want to clarify that, thus far, we have not received any reports for content that, under the new rules, would require a mandatory content warning but did not already have one. we really appreciate that people are using the content warning system correctly, even before we had rules in place. the purpose of these rules isn’t to change anyone’s behavior, but to codify behavior we already saw, as well as to make our job moderating easier. we are, as always, open to feedback on these policy and technical changes. this is a tricky, sensitive area to work in, and we’re making sure to act deliberately and with consideration. this is not a sudden decision; we have been thinking over these changes for well over a month now. (related: having weekly hours long conversations with your coworkers about lolicon kind of sucks and we would recommend against being in a position where that’s necessary.) that’s all for now. please let us know if you have any questions or feedback and, as always, thanks for using cohost!
They then solicited comments about whether to allow drawn child porn - and the sort of abusers* who draw child porn - to be on their website (which of course would then turn this website into The Loli Website until it got disabled by its host/registrar), or whether that'd be 😰CENSORSHIP😰
The thread is predictably full of Very Too Much Online people
(* over nearly 15 years and a quarter of a million players, not one person on my game who ever even talked about loli was not a serial abuser)
Look, there's a lot of nuance in online community management. There are very few easy black-or-white decisions. Most of the decisions you make over what to delete/ban will be difficult, agonizing even, and will end up with you getting yelled at.
This isn't one of those. This is forehead-slappingly obvious, and cohost managed somehow to not just dither over whether to be The Nonce Site, but do it *publicly.* That should be a big red flag for anyone thinking of being associated with them.
Comments on cohost and a comment a new fediverse admin in their early 20's left on this thread reminded me that there's a very specific failure state that some Very Online people get into when they're admining a website, and that is to mix up government with website operation.
Websites aren't countries, they're Literally Just Websites. Your users can leave and go to one of the over 300 other websites on the internet, whenever they like.
(if they can't, your website shouldn't exist)
s0 Is Not A Sysadmin@s0 Ah, idealism. I do miss those days. :P
Like, one of the staff made a post about how they really wanted to ban a guy for being an arsehole but being an arsehole wasn't against the rules and they weren't specifically breaking any rules. Like, yeah my guy, 90% of the people you have to ban will be like that. The ones who you ban for a clear and unambiguous rules violation will be a tiny minority!
Programmers making rules figure it's all if-this-then-that simple