Moderation is a hard problem.

It is an •intrinsically• hard problem. It’s not hard because of design choices or tech choices or incentives or laws or capitalism. It’s hard because humans.

Ignoring it doesn’t magically make it easy.

Grand edicts don’t magically make it easy.

AI doesn’t magically make it easy.

And federation doesn’t magically make it easy.

It’s •work•. Real work. And when that work doesn’t happen, it causes harm.

@mekkaokereke
https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/109387434218657900

mekka okereke :verified: (@[email protected])

Content warning: Racism, death threats, anti-Semitism, homophobia

Hachyderm.io
@mekkaokereke Replies to concerns like mekka’s with anything of the form “it’s easy!” or “you just have to…” indicate that the person replying does not yet understand the problem.

Fellow software developers, does anything make you want to start punching faces faster than questions from your stakeholders that start with “Can’t you just…?”

Don’t be that person. You know that other people think your problems are small because they’re at a distance, because they don’t even understand what the problem is. This principle applies to you too.

@inthehands Yes, the phrase "How hard can it be?"

@brian @inthehands What if I've already made self-driving cars and reusable rockets... it's bound to be easy then... right?

I ran an aggregator site for years and feel like most of the problems are the ones in gray areas. You can kick off the people who advocate violence and the racists - that isn't hard and could probably be automated.

At issue are the people who poison discussion more subtly, and slowly drag everything down to their level. They pull up the noise and drown out the signal.

@grahamsz @brian @inthehands One issue that admins face is where to draw the line. Most of these problems are not black and white. Sure, someone who threatens people is obviously not acceptable. But what about two people with a disagreement? When does that stop being discussion and become unacceptable behavior?

@BertL @brian @inthehands Plus often you really need to look at the totality of the interactions which is totally overwhelming.

Take Lauren Bobert, she's repeatedly advocated against red flag laws, and stoked hatred towards the colorado lgbtq+ community but will surely point to her tweets condemning the most recent shooting as evidence that she's opposed to violence.

I think the notion that you can assess a post in isolation is deeply flawed, even if i once believed otherwise.

@grahamsz @BertL @brian Yes. It’s all context and nuance and judgement. Thus my calling it an intrinsically hard problem. Everything difficult you describe is part of humans and human interaction, not just a particular platform or particular product approach.

@inthehands @BertL @brian I think niche communities work well. Subreddits for baking and photography are largely troll-free because it's easier to have bright-line rules.

New sites also work well because the sheer optimism and energy of the userbase can overcome the will of the trolls, but i'm skeptical that the average hobbyist operator of a mastodon instance will have the energy to outlast the kind of troll who makes it their full time job.

@grahamsz @inthehands @brian Good point. As far as the Federverse goes, the admins will silence an infected site, leaving the trolls talking to themselves if they cannot be stopped individually. I am concerned that this sudden influx of new people fleeing Twitter will bring some of Twitter's problems with them.
@grahamsz This is definitely a drawback of federation. Shared blocklists and limited scale can help, but it’s something that the larger metacommunity needs to take seriously. Small admins are going to need support, ready-to-use resources and processes, guidance