Anders EknertMar 15, 2025

I didn't expect my post about Swedish Television mistakenly labeling Vladimir Putin as "president USA" yesterday to blow up the way it did. What I *really* didn't expect was #Hachyderm's admins deleting my post just as it was approaching a thousand boosts. This because someone allegedly reported it as "misinformation", and that what I saw on TV "does not appear to have actually happened"... which ironically is about as Putinesque a statement can be.

So how would you fact check this? A few people commenting on the post had already done that, the way people normally do — by asking for the source. And they got it. I even boosted the link to SVT Play, where the broadcast can be streamed by anyone. It's still there https://www.svtplay.se/video/jAM5B9o/aktuellt/tor-13-mar-21-00?position=135

The Hachyderm "fact checking" process doesn't ask for a source though. In fact, they didn't ask me for anything. Since there were no news headlines mentioning this blunder, it must not have happened.

I appreciate the lecture for me to "fact check my posts before posting", but the assumption that I'd want to post anything on this instance again could certainly need some fact checking.

To the rest of you, enjoy this last screenshot of Putin definitely not getting labeled as "president USA" on SVT2 News on Swedish Television. And for those of you who can't get enough of things that never happened, I'll post a video in a comment below too.

Aktuellt – Tor 13 mar 21:00

Utspel från Putin: Öppnar för vapenvila - med villkor • Utredningsförslag: Skolorna ska bli mobilfria • Nya utmaningar för kyrkan: AI och existensen

SVT Play
Show threadAnders EknertMar 15, 2025
Show threadJim KillockMar 15, 2025
@anderseknert Does Hachyderm / Looks like Mastodon may need better tools around appeals to moderation processes, although such things are always somewhat unsatisfactory.
Show threadgroff 🇺🇦Mar 15, 2025
@jim @anderseknert
As hachyderm has users in the UK they will be (from tomorrow) legally obliged to have a robust and easily accessable appeals process in place.
Show threadquintessence Mar 15, 2025

@geoffl

Hello!

If there are questions about the Appeals process, I can just answer this here:

All he, or anyone in a similar situation, would need to do to Appeal this decision is something like this:

"Hey, I think your team missed something [[ link ]]"

We don't require our users, or anyone, to write an essay if we miss something. Just to let us know.  

CC

@jim @anderseknert

Show threadU.LancierMar 15, 2025

@quintessence @geoffl @jim @anderseknert
The mistake isn't in the appealing process, but in the way Hachyderms admins reacted to the defamation.

f someone points out a possible misinformation *without* any proof then the admins job is not to block it, but to ask the pointing person for better reason than "it's *not* all over the news". If there is reason for doubt than ask the OP next.

Don't get yourself tricked into being misused like a SWAT-team.

Show threadquintessence Mar 15, 2025

That is fair. As moderation decisions are reversible, there is some inconsistency between whether we take down a post (which is rare) and when we try to just restore a post if someone points out that we missed something.

@Ulan_KA @geoffl @jim @anderseknert

Show threadJim KillockMar 15, 2025
@quintessence @Ulan_KA @geoffl @anderseknert is there any chance of restoring the post in question?
Show threadquintessence Mar 15, 2025

Related to this question: based on the times of the original post to this thread and the Appeal, it's unclear if our user created this thread before even Appealing or did so at the same time.

If our user had filed the Appeal and allowed us to respond he, and you, would know that the Appeal was approved some time ago.

That said, as part of the Approval the Mastodon software should have automatically restored the post and it hasn't. So we have a query out to Mastodon about this. (Which our user would also have been informed about at the time of the Approval.)

CC

@jim @Ulan_KA @geoffl @anderseknert

Show threadMr. Lance E Sloan (IRL) 👤

@quintessence @jim @Ulan_KA @geoffl @anderseknert
Timing of what happened & when is immaterial. You're making excuses. Simply saying, "we made a mistake and we're sorry", is better.

DELETING posts IMMEDIATELY shouldn't be the @hachyderm response to this kind of abuse report. Especially because you're having trouble restoring it after the appeal has been approved. Don't delete, temporarily disable them, but only after making a manual backup. It's your problem, not @Mastodon's. #sysadmin101

Mar 16, 2025 at 10:41amMoshidon
Show threadquintessence Mar 16, 2025

@sloanlance

There are different responses to a report of this nature. The more common pattern is our Freeze pattern, which we talk about often and document here:

https://community.hachyderm.io/blog/2023/05/08/a-minute-from-the-moderators/#harm-prevention-and-mitigation-on-large-instance

It is very easy to say what should or shouldn't've happened in the past when more information has come to light in the intervening time. It is also the case that it is easy to say "well clearly this user would've preferred the freeze pattern to the deletion"; however that is not globally true. People also react negatively to being frozen, as it leaves reported content up longer.

Basically: moderation is hard. People don't like to be moderated, no matter the how. That doesn't mean it isn't up to moderation teams to do the best they can and respond with care, because of course it is. It does mean that it is easy to say "oh, this would've been better and people wouldn't have reacted badly if..." when we have opinions for how things should go. That said, there is no way to know how things would have gone. It is entirely possible that we could've used our freeze pattern and the outcome would be the same, as people have definitely reacted this way to being frozen, even with recourse.

CC

@jim @Ulan_KA @geoffl @anderseknert @Mastodon

A Minute from the Moderators

About Hachyderm's Moderation and Infrastructure Team Structures

Hachyderm Community