A New Approach to Moderation at Websleuths

[cujenn81]

A huge thank you to @Fraize for the updated emoji format. It’s much more user friendly on my mobile phone.

It’s the little things in life.

 

[Ruminations]

I have a new concern.

I just saw a post in a thread that contains a tweet from an acceptable main steam source, and it quotes a head of state saying something that is blatantly untrue. It is true the head of state is saying it, but the words spoken are not true. There is nothing in the post that indicates it is not true.

So, does posting it could basically be spreading misinformation.

I don't want to report it, because I think it is very important that it is known that this false statement was made. However, I also don't want to quote it and mention it is just not true, for fear of the comment that it is false being blurred or snipped, and ultimately compounding the misinformation. I suspect that could be that the reason it was posted without comment was the same reason I won't quote it: maybe the person posting it does not want the context (the world leader is stating a falsehood) blurred or snipped.

This can't be easy for the administrators and the mods. But somehow, this site has to allow crimes by politicians or agents of governments be discussed, or it can't be sustained as a place that people who value free discussion will want to stay. Or, speaking for myself, I won't be able to stay.

MOO

 

[Traymar]

Well, you are kinda right, but...what do we want here?


While it is true that this is a business that can censor discussion if it chooses to, I believe the moderators are saying that is not what they want to do. They are saying they are trying to balance freedom of speech and other pressures. The disagreement on the thread revolves around the ways to preserve freedom of speech and address those other pressures.

I guess it's possible some people want only one point of view to be allowed. As for me, I don't want to be here if it is an echo chamber for one point of view. I'm trying to stick websleuths out because the site is saying they don't want to keep it to one point of view, either.

MOO

I agree with you and only wanted to point out the distinction, since misunderstanding it can lead to a focus on (and hence "correcting") the wrong thing.

So, in other words, we can focus on "what we want here," as you said, and not on the non-issue of whether our First Amendment rights are being violated.

I definitely could have explained myself better, so thanks for taking the time to help me clarify.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

I have a new concern.

I just saw a post in a thread that contains a tweet from an acceptable main steam source, and it quotes a head of state saying something that is blatantly untrue. It is true the head of state is saying it, but the words spoken are not true. There is nothing in the post that indicates it is not true.

So, does posting it could basically be spreading misinformation.

I don't want to report it, because I think it is very important that it is known that this false statement was made. However, I also don't want to quote it and mention it is just not true, for fear of the comment that it is false being blurred or snipped, and ultimately compounding the misinformation. I suspect that could be that the reason it was posted without comment was the same reason I won't quote it: maybe the person posting it does not want the context (the world leader is stating a falsehood) blurred or snipped.

This can't be easy for the administrators and the mods. But somehow, this site has to allow crimes by politicians or agents of governments be discussed, or it can't be sustained as a place that people who value free discussion will want to stay. Or, speaking for myself, I won't be able to stay.

MOO

From a journalism point of view, what a head of state says (in a tweet or otherwise) is newsworthy. It can be discounted, disproved, etc. but it is indeed worthy of reporting because of the stature of the person who stated it.

If it's untrue, there should be reputable sources to refute it.

jmopinion

 

[303gmf]

I guess that's the theory, but in practice I see plenty of all out rudeness, viscousness really, in the way some WS members make comments towards people accused of crimes,. Like Barry the accused Colorado wife killer, nobody will say a balanced word toward him, even if his own daughters are supporting him, the lynch crowd of hateful comments toward Barry are just too raw and vicious for me to feel comfortably reading, I feel many times how I wish the site moderators would bring the worst of these personal attackers , who seem to have some unreserved crime trauma in their background to make them act so, under some form of control so their bad vibes don't contaminate those just wanting the know the facts. I do feel some encouragement with these new moderation techniques.

Sometimes there is absolutely NOTHING good to say about a murderer like Barry M

Comfort towards the victim Suzanne seems more important than the thread reader

 

[Fraize]

I don't want to report it, because I think it is very important that it is known that this false statement was made.

I agree – the newsworthiness of a high-profile person making an untrue public-statement is undeniable, however I highly encourage you to report it anyway.

When we get a lot of reports on things that are allowed under our current rules, the mods come together and discuss it. It's only through your reports do we have visibility that it could be a problem. Ultimately, we may choose to take no action, but if it happens enough, it could eventually lead to a policy shift.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Normally "discussion of moderation policies" is not allowed on Websleuths – but since this thread specifically covers changes to our moderation policy, I'll entertain your concerns – as it pertains to flagging only. This is not an invitation to pile on with other moderation issues.

 

[Fraize]

@Fraize snipped by me for focus. I think you meant "rein" in the discussion. Horseowner here.

I am reading this thread with interest and find myself appreciating many of the comments. Thank you for opening the conversation.

Indeed – and I should know better. I spent many summers at my Great-Aunt's farm learning to ride English (badly, mind).

 

[Fraize]

I'd genuinely prefer a straightforward "easy" answer that contributes to a FACT based conversation the way WS has always done.

You and me both. Easy rules are easy to enforce.

Images posted without any approved source links, do not contribute to a fact based conversation but instead, insert wild speculation based on an image with zero credible source link. Social media is flooded with this garbage already.

You wisely said, "do not contribute to a fact-based conversation," but I think that phrase is doing a lot of heavy-lifting. I believe there is a chance we're missing out on exploring ideas that may lead to breakthroughs. If we can give ourselves a little leeway, while maintaining some objectivity, we may discover it's an improvement. I think that, while our rigidity holds a lot of benefits that we all enjoy, it might be holding us back.

Then again, we may discover that it is not. If that's the case, I'll be glad to roll it back. But I will challenge anybody who thinks they know for sure what will happen without data! I aim to collect that data.

 

[Ontario Mom]

You and me both. Easy rules are easy to enforce.


You wisely said, "do not contribute to a fact-based conversation," but I think that phrase is doing a lot of heavy-lifting. I believe there is a chance we're missing out on exploring ideas that may lead to breakthroughs. If we can give ourselves a little leeway, while maintaining some objectivity, we may discover it's an improvement. I think that, while our rigidity holds a lot of benefits that we all enjoy, it might be holding us back.

Then again, we may discover that it is not. If that's the case, I'll be glad to roll it back. But I will challenge anybody who thinks they know for sure what will happen without data! I aim to collect that data.

Social media is already filled with fake images & fake videos.
Backing up images & statements with approved, legit sources is what sets WS apart from the insanity of gossipy and rumor filled social media forums where this junk goes on all the time.

My 2 cents FWIW.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

@Fraize, moving forwards, can we implement English language spelling and grammar only, across all threads and posts??

(Runs and Hides)

TIA

Xx