You may want to delete or at least limit your FB account, then.
The problem, then, is less that FB may be a somewhat useful link to friends (that can be solved by just checking for new messages from them a few times a week) but the lack of alternatives to spend a bit of time in between tasks.
Yeah, it’s currently disabled.
So what alternative did you find?
The rules have been tightened up here from time to time, sometimes at the request of a critical mass of users who ask the mods and sometimes as a result of top-down changes to the system or policy. That such changes are a rare occurrence indicates that the policies and the systems were well-designed in the first place. Judging by results, the rules here (in combination with the other factors I mentioned) work very well.
No platform is ever going to be 100% trolley free, but in my experience BB has an unusually small number of trollies who are able to hang in for very long despite being here for the express purpose of arguing in bad faith. At any one time there are fewer than seven here from the first group I mentioned.
Being deliberate or clueless jerks at their core, trollies who think they’re clever will inevitably break a rule or do something else that gets them permabanned. At this point I can almost see when the countdown clock towards a ban starts with certain users (who remain oblivious to the ticking).
The larger on-topic point is not about BB’s moderation strategy in particular, but that for several reasons the large platforms like Twitter and Facebook aren’t willing to look at such successful strategies and attempt to scale them up. That’s how we ended up with major platforms where a very large percentage of users are Russian bots or trolley factory astroturfers or “racist uncles” or spammers. That’s part of the reason that LJ ended up where it did: at some point after the acquisition by SixApart they felt “handcuffed” by their own rules and didn’t allow their moderators enough room for “nuance”.
Perhaps “fast moderation” would work?
You can always hope that they’ll change their minds.
LJ could have changed their rules at any time. OTOH, Twitter and Facebook thrive in spite of problematic accounts. I am not sure I see a pattern in there.
Hope is not a plan. That’s why moderation is important on discussion and community platforms. Hoping that bad actors and the clueless will come to their senses on their own gets you Dorsey’s Digital Deadwood (AKA Twitter).
It depends on how you define “thrive”. As platforms for small-d discourse between strangers (and frequently between people who know each-other) they’re cesspools. And as the article explains, LJ had other issues beyond moderation.
Nothing, really. Which is annoying. If you want to be in contact with your friends nowadays you more or less need it, or an equivalent.
Or at least, the segments of your friends the algorithm has decided you need to see, while ignoring everyone else.
I was afraid you would come with that answer. Sorry.
Ever-growing communities as the ones on the interwebz are actually ever-growing paradoxes : a community, or a social network have to be by definition exclusive… You’re in it or not. If everybody is in your network, this alters the very meaning of network. That’s why when they grow out of control, they lose their essence.
I don’t think the logic tracks here, or at least there is a large piece missing. Just because a thing is exclusive doesn’t meant that being exclusive is the essence of that thing. Some people have red hair and others don’t but nothing changes about the colour of their hair as more and more people are born with red hair. My body is a community of cells that grew quite substantially over the early part of my life but I think the essence of that group is still that it comprises a human organism.
Maybe what you are saying is about communities that was defined only be being those people who use a particular service? So the community develops values and norms but the defining feature of the community isn’t in any way dependent on those values and norms?
I mean, the more a community grows, the bigger the risk of adding uncontrolable, or unmotivated elements; the initial spirit tends to disappear. See the law of large numbers : if your population sample is big enough, every kind of deviance will be representated in it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
