Mastodawn

Why reactive moderation isn't going to cut it, aka, "The Sucker-punch Problem".

Imagine you invite your friend—let's call him Mark—to a club with you. It's open-door, which is cool, because you like when a lot of folx show up. Sure, it might get a little rowdy, but they have a bouncer, and you've never seen things getting out of hand.

So, you're busy dancing when a new guy walks in wearing a "I Hate Mark" shirt and promptly sucker-punches Mark. You didn't see it happen, but Mark is upset and tells the bouncer, who kicks the guy out.

A few minutes later, the same guy walks back in and sucker-punches Mark again. Same result. Some people in the club say they'll tell the bouncer if they see him come in again.

Mark wants to leave, but you tell him it's not that bad—after all, you've never been punched, and you didn't see Mark get punched, so maybe he's just being sensitive.

A different guy walks in wearing a "I Plan On Punching Mark" shirt. No one tells the bouncer, because they've never seen *this* guy punch Mark.

He sucker-punches Mark. At this point, Mark is pissed and yelling about being punched.

The club members talk about putting up a "No Punching Mark" sign, but the owner is worried it'll hurt his club's growth.

Another Mark in the club proposes they turn away anyone wearing an anti-Mark shirt or espousing anti-Mark rhetoric at the door, but this gets shot down for the same reason as the sign idea—then someone sucker-punches him.

By the end of the night, your friend Mark is beat to fuck and says he'll never come to this club again. In fact, he's going to tell anyone named Mark to stay clear of this place.

The next time you go to the club, half the folx there are wearing "I Kill Marks" shirts, but there aren't any Marks there, so it doesn't come up.

I've been sucker-punched every day, for the last three days in a row by some of the most vile hate-speech and imagery. The accounts are using open registration servers and signing up with variations on the username "heilhitler1488". I fully expect it'll continue as long as we have open registration servers.

And no, username pattern blocking alone won't fix this, it'll help a little, but mostly it'll just make them wear a different shirt while they sucker-punch us.

#OpenRegistrationHurts

Show thread

Netscape Navigator Nov 6

@alice

So, you’ve actually just supported an argument I made a while back — that the Fediverse needs AI. I first made this point during the major spam attack that hit the Fediverse last year.

Here’s why: if the goal is to grow the Fediverse, registration can’t be invitation-only. Right now, Fediverse software isn’t as user-friendly as mainstream platforms like Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook. Making it even more exclusive would only slow growth further, or even stop it internally.

I say this from experience. I remember how online forums tried to handle spam, bots, and trolls — by making registration harder. Some required manual review or moderator approval. That worked for a while, but it also made those communities less welcoming and more difficult to join. Over time, most forums faded away.

At the same time, keeping registration completely open invites bad actors, trolls, and spam. It’s a tough balance — too open, and the space gets toxic; too closed, and it stops growing. That’s exactly where AI could help: by automatically handling spam, filtering bad behavior, and letting real users in without creating unnecessary barriers.

Show thread

Jennifer Moore 😷Nov 6

@NetscapeNavigator

I don't think invitation-only is _always_ a bad thing. Pros and cons. But from context (the recent burst of harassers on mas.to), I think the rest of us were talking about open sign-ups versus _moderated_ sign-ups.

By the latter, I mean an intro and a bit of common sense, not necessarily an invitation from someone already there.

As for the history of forums... I'm not saying there couldn't have been an _element_ of shifting moderation practices, but from what I saw, the dwindling of forums and email lists seemed to me primarily attributable to the rise (at the time) of Facebook. And that in turn was primarily attributable to its convenience for not-so-techie people, especially via smartphones.

Discord on the other hand is currently a popular platform, despite the fact that most "servers" I'm on require an intro before you get access to the main channels.

Now I'm curious about this. Don't most people understand the concept of an intro request? And if that's not the case, could it perhaps be solved with a bit of "this is the kind of thing we mean"? I know some people find the concept of "I must introduce myself to be let on here" alienating, but are they a majority I wonder? How big an issue is it?

Show thread

Netscape Navigator

@unchartedworlds

From my experience as a community owner, administrator, and moderator (having served in all those roles), it was significant.

Many people like to join and participate at their own pace, and telling them they must follow a defined pace is a quick way to discourage participation.

It was so significant that, in communities where introductions were required, those introductions were often just one-liners. There was also usually a lack of follow-ups, since most members ignored those introductions, knowing they had been made only because they were required.

Of course, not all communities required a public introduction. Some included a text box asking members to explain their reason for joining — similar to what is being proposed here — and that too had the same effect.

The only ones who seemed truly committed to joining and participating afterward were mostly the so-called “try-hards” and the “trolls.” “Try-hards” are people willing to jump through hoops, but most users are casual and low-effort — the very quality that made social media excel, as forums demanded more from their members. That left mostly the trolls, who loved a challenge.

#Forums #Fediverse