Griping about moderation, bias, et cetera

[orenwolf]

@jerwin

It’s a good idea to not take moderation personally. Don’t try to learn from the experience.

This is excellent advice if your eventual goal is to be banned from the BBS. Routine violations of our policies without any sign of altering behaviour might be one of the most succinct definitions of ”trolley” that I’ve ever encountered.

@jerwin

They don’t disagree with your post

20,000 active users, but please, do try and generalize. As for the mods? If your post is flagged and stays that way, then I’m afraid they do, indeed, disagree with the assertion that your post abides by the guidelines here.

@jerwin

And it’s not worth arguing with them, since arguing about flags is offtopic.

• Anyone could have opened a topic just like this one to discuss moderation.
• There is a dedicated topic I started when I began moderating here for this purpose.
• There is an invitation to PM me in on the guidelines page, and I routinely respond to comments, questions, or concerns about moderation.

IMHO, many of those who refuse these paths and instead argue about moderation or disrupt topics do so because they want to have their say, their way, in the topic where everyone else is posting. They learn pretty quickly that the BBS is not about them.

See above re: entitlement.

[navarro]

my policies for throwing a flag are similar to yours. i flag for flagrant violation of the guidelines, i flag for comments that are not just off-topic but almost achieve derangement levels of being off-topic and, further, are off-topic without any merit of interest or humor. i will also flag for obvious spam. it is possible that of the level 3 members i give more benefit of the doubt as to what needs flagging than anyone else because i, like the vast majority of the folks i know here, want to encourage robust debate and discussion.

even then, not all of my flags result in removal of what i consider an offending comment because the moderators and staff also try to foster a full and open discussion of issues ranging from the most important political, moral, or ethical issues of the day to trivia and minutiae relating to any one of a number of literary, cinematic, or musical works.

i treasure this forum because of the high standards of moderation and the incredible pool of knowledge i am treated to because enough people have enough faith in the systems in place at this forum to be able to share their ideas, their knowledge, their opinions, and their various senses of humors. my world would be a meaner place without it. and to all of you who have made this possible over the years–from the authors and staff, the moderators, the members who care enough to flag the stuff that doesn’t make the cut, to the members who share of themselves, to you i offer my deepest gratitude and appreciation. to you i offer the best i have of myself to offer.

[KathyPartdeux]

@AndreStmaur

I have no way to really know, but my feeling is that boingboing is somewhat a victim of what is called the “outrage economy”, which plays on several social and news networks. The consequence of re-publishing articles which are intentionally written to stir people’s emotions is that comments will become more heated. That, in turn, increases the stress on moderation.

Indeed. The more reasonable approach is to publish articles that don’t resonate with one’s intended audience.

[FlyerJack]

I’m not agreeing with him, but there are other choices besides “intentionally written to stir people’s emotions” and “articles that don’t resonate.”

[gracchus]

There are. Those articles generally appear in mainstream outlet likes the NYT and the WaPo and the WSJ and the Guardian and The Economist and state-sponsored broadcasters like the BBC or the CBC. They have to balance publishing articles that resonate with their intended audience with a superficially objective and balanced tone and framing.

BoingBoing is a group blog of authors commenting on stories that often originate in those other outlets and addressing an audience that is, broadly speaking, like themselves. Often they are explicitly trying to stir readers’ emotion on a topic that they’re passionate about (in the case of the beehive story, a moron doing his small part to actively make a bad situation worse). They also assume that the audience understands their stylistic quirks, their political positions, and their particular areas of focus.

That said, the diversity of the audience’s opinion is such that there’s plenty of room for debate in the comments section – as long as it’s within the rules. An “echo chamber” that explicitly rejects opinions in support of bigoted and sexist and physically/medically/environmentally dangerous positions is both perfectly in line with American free-speech ideals and a welcome relief from other forums in current American life.

[TornPaperNapkin]

I almost agree. Basically the way I see it we’re all on a spectrum of vulnerability to the general climate of internet discourse, which is inherently distorting.

[ficuswhisperer]

@AndreStmaur

people, who were actually in agreement about the subject, ended up being upset

Yes, this can be incredibly frustrating to argue about something you’re actually in agreement with but it’s easy to fall into that trap when discussing an emotionally charged topic - and from what I remember about that day, the beehive destruction story was a whipped shit topping on a day filled with other emotionally charged bullshit. (Much like most every day these days.)

I find the best thing to do is remind folks we’re all on the same side, and if that doesn’t work, disengage from the topic because nothing good can come of it.

[Melizmatic]

@ficuswhisperer

I find the best thing to do is remind folks we’re all on the same side,

But we’re not, though.

Not if we’re basing that assessment on the content that members here post consistently, and take it at face value that they genuinely mean what they say.

Going by that metric, there have been (and still are) many people in the community who have made it all too clear that they place far more value on their own comfort and privilege than they do anything else; and that’s highly problematic in the scheme of trying to foster a more just, equitable and sustainable society.

There are folks here that perpetually demonstrate via their words and oft-repeated opinions that they are just fine with the status quo; passively feeding into and abetting inequality, oppression, sexism, classicism, and/or casual racism, as long as those problems don’t visibly impact them on a personal level.

They often quibble endlessly over mere semantics, the pretense of false civility, and complain about the “tone” that others use when discussing sensitive topics, rather than actually addressing the issues that need to be resolved, or even attempting to come up with any ideas that could lead to viable solutions.

Instead, they seem to want to dictate the methods and means by which the oppressed and marginalized ‘should’ fight our own battles, without any logical regard to the harsh reality that we’re forced to live in daily.

For them, it seems there is only one “side”; theirs.

While highly counterproductive, such mentality and attitudes are not against the terms of use on this site, and so some of the community chooses to debate against the shortsighted ideas and bad faith arguments that are put forth, while others choose not to needlessly waste any time or energy on what often seems like a lost cause.

Regardless to whatever way that we choose to react to those who hold unpopular or even questionable views, it has to be said that while some of us may share some similar core objectives, we’re clearly not all ‘allies’ here.

[ficuswhisperer]

@Melizmatic

But we’re not, though.

I only meant that in the context of arguing the same point. Sometimes in the heat of the moment it can be difficult to realize this. Certainly doesn’t mean this is often or always the case.

(And I’m not disagreeing with any of your points either as they are all spot on, just clarifying mine.)

[Melizmatic]

@ficuswhisperer

I only meant that in the context of arguing the same point.

Even then.

If someone’s way of communicating practically drips with condescension, disdain and a complete lack of basic mutual respect ( just because we happen to be women, or POC, or Trans, or of some other superficial difference) it doesn’t matter that they agree with us on certain issues.

That agreement doesn’t make them on the same side as us, it simply means that they are not an active obstacle.

[d_r]

@ficuswhisperer

Yes, this can be incredibly frustrating to argue about something you’re actually in agreement with but it’s easy to fall into that trap when discussing an emotionally charged topic

Right, and often poster X makes an instant (and immutable) wrong decision for reasons of their own that poster Y is their enemy on a topic, and then escalation occurs because neither wants to let go. This is what the ignore function was meant to defuse, though for that to work it requires people to use it.

[smulder]

@AndreStmaur

there was no argument, just emotions and -I feel- over reaction

THAT’S TERRIBLE!

@AndreStmaur

For the same reason, I feel

You’re over-reacting.

[AndreStmaur]

From this thread, I understand that moderation is based on a system of flags: posts may be flagged and a large number of flags will automatically hide a given post and mark it so that moderation can decide to delete or keep it.

But, if there is a number of participants in the BBS that act as a close-knit group, there is a possibility that this group will compound their flags. They would not necessarily collude as a clique to flag a post, just reflag posts already flagged by other people they know, trusting the judgement of that person and not checking closely the value of the post. Conversely, the posts of members of that hypothetical group would not be flagged as often, since the other members are not organized.

In that case, the flagging system would steer moderation towards the particular tastes of that group and isolated members outside of that group would find that their views are often flagged and deleted.

This may or may not be considered a good thing, of course. I suppose it depends on the business model upon which the site is operating. Moderation by majority votes are used in the industry (either by down or by upvote as on digg for example).

[anon67050589]

You will be pleased to learn that moderation has already thought about this possibility and is quite on top of who is whom on this forum. There is a hierarchy of trust. People colluding as you fantasize don’t get to the level of trust necessary to do what you’re saying.

[L0ki]

@anon67050589

People colluding as you fantasize don’t get to the level of trust necessary to do what you’re saying.

Well, I don’t there’s anything in the system to prevent it other than vigilant action by a moderator.

Pretty much anyone can flag. TL1 and above.

I think the more relevant bit is that flagging itself does not do anything other than hide the post (as in add the minor step of clicking on it to read it) if enough people flag it (or one TL3 flag as ‘spam’ on a TL0 post or auto-silence for a TL0 user if enough TL3 users flag a post).

There is TL4 which allows immediate hiding of a post if flagged but I’m not sure BB implements level 4. @orenwolf?

If I understand @AndreStmaur’s scenario, the suggestion is that simply by things being flagged in a consistent fashion, it would eventually shape the moderator’s response.

I suppose that would be a risk but really as you say, one can only rely on moderators to take action to deal with inappropriate flagging if it occurs.

[Celandine_Crane]

They explicitly said they weren’t suggesting collusion, merely that when someone who’s well ranked in the “hierarchy of trust” (which you yourself acknowledge the existence of) flags a post, there’s an increased likelihood of other people flagging it because that first flag came from a trustworthy person. And you’re asserting that people who flag posts which are flagged by other reputable users don’t become reputable users… somehow?

I don’t think there’s any systemic bias going on on BB, but I think it’s inarguable that there are some posters who are more visible than others, and I think that its not unreasonable to imagine that regular posters are more likely to be their partisans as a result of that notability.

[Melizmatic]

*sighs

I see some folks never seem to have considered the obvious common denominator:

[armozel]

Well I do want to apologize for derailing the Green New Deal thread with the nuclear power stuff. I should’ve just left well alone since it’s a sensitive subject. I’ll try to not make the job of moderators harder than they are already now in the future.

[orenwolf]

@L0ki

If I understand @AndreStmaur’s scenario, the suggestion is that simply by things being flagged in a consistent fashion, it would eventually shape the moderator’s response.

Not really. Flags do not carry equal weight. This isn’t just based on “Trust Level”, but also on how often a user’s flags are agreed with by moderators.

There are prolific flaggers who’s flags are not often agreed with, and there are users who rarely flag but their flags are always agreed with. The weights those flags carry have dramatically different affects on posts, and recent Discourse development has been informed in part on making sure prolific flaggers do not overwhelm moderators with work.

Tech specifics here:

Proposal: Consolidated Review Queue

In short, there is a LOT of information about users, how they flag, and how moderators respond to those flags, and that means that a user (or even group of users) flagging a post may mean less than you think.

That being said, there’s also a case to be made that a user who’s posts are consistently flagged by multiple other users over time may be an indication that the user is in fact a disruptive influence on the forum, and in extreme cases, we’ve removed such users for that reason in the past.

[L0ki]

@orenwolf

Not really. Flags do not carry equal weight. This isn’t just based on “Trust Level”, but also on how often a user’s flags are agreed with by moderators.

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

If I’ve understood the concern correctly though, I think it’s more about moderators starting to agree with flags because so many people flag the same posts as a kind of subconscious training effect.

So on that basis, the theory is that there might be a feedback effect where people flag, the moderator agrees and then, I suppose, is more pre-disposed to agree with future flags by those people because lots of their flags were agreed with in the past.

If that’s it, I agree that it’s not really something that is much of a concern or at least not one that technology can do anything about.

At the end of the day all systems rely on having someone making decisions about what is ok or not and this system builds in a feature to try to ensure that if decision making starts off right, the positive feedback loop doesn’t even start.

If the posited ‘clique’ flags inappropriately, the moderator disagrees with those flags thus downgrading any future flags unless they start flagging appropriately (well, for the next 100 flags).

And if they’re flagging appropriately, there’s no problem.