I want instance eventually like CENSORSHIP FREE where people can say anything, like the voat except no limiters placwd on you and you can SAY ANYTHING whenever you want ans
I want instance eventually like CENSORSHIP FREE where people can say anything, like the voat except no limiters placwd on you and you can SAY ANYTHING whenever you want ans
That’s a very good thing. Moderation is needed sometimes. That doesn’t have to mean that moderation is biased. All human beings are of course biased to some degree. But one can try to moderate unbiased.
Huh. “Targeted harassment”? I’ve not seen that statement. I’ve only seen him say that he doesn’t think that this is “objectively bad”. If you ask me, this sounds like a phrase that is intentionally misleading. If you take in mind what “objectively” means, it could mean either thing. I think it is not out of the question that this was meant to lure the mods into swinging the ban hammer.
The way I see this: If you don’t play the banning game, you can’t be outplayed like that. You win this war by not fighting in it. I’m in a different sub where people are actively trying to trigger the mods. You simply can’t win. People like that will create new accounts and the problem is there again. They are having fun, you have a problem.
Even if my interpretation of that user isn’t correct: Not playing the ban game is still the fitting way to deal with that. Because you can’t ban someone who shouldn’t have be banned, while at the same time you don’t ban people who simply come back with another account.
deleted by creator
Super late reply, but I think this is a fantastic point. It’s such a strange argument, too, and I’ve seen people experiment with this argument on, say, hackernews.
There’s a long list of arguments against moderating that experiments with different ideas from every possible angle. One argument is “banning won’t work, so don’t bother!” Another contradictory one is “banning is bad because it’s so powerful and effective, it effectively infringes on free speech!”
Another variant is a kind of whitewashing, where someone always just so happens to argue in favor of keeping trolls around, but for reasonable-sounding reasons that split the difference on every point and generally just don’t treat harassment as a big deal.
The only consistently I’ve ever found in these arguments is that they seem to work backward from a preferred outcome: supporting, empowering, protecting trolls. I like to think I’ve read enough comparative politics and philosophy that I could look at a meandering “don’t ban the trolls” comment and squint through it and see what a person’s underlying values are. But more often than not the only thing that clearly emerges is that it just so happens to be an argument for keeping trolls around. And it’s part of the broader experiment with seeing how far they can go in pushing the limits with bad faith arguments.
That is a misunderstanding. I didn’t intend that part for any kind of moderation situation. I mean this in the context of a user intentionally trying to trigger certain moderation techniques.
I mean, I think, it’s more “fun” for them, if they can closely walk the line of what’s acceptable and what not, and really make the moderators think hard, if they should ban them or not.
Really, your advocacy for more diligence when banning will straight-up increase the work that a moderator has to put into such trolls and therefore increase the potential for trolling.
If on the other hand, a moderator pro-actively bans people that try to state risky things and that test the boundaries, then they have very little work and they don’t get trolled, because they just click one button. The person re-creating their account and trying again and again, would be trolling themselves, because they create a lot of work for themselves, but not for the moderators.
That’s not what I’m advocating for.