"It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility

[Moondira]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

10 minutes ago, Moondira said:

The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit.  You have the dynamic reversed.  A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.

Luna?

Luna is the Spanish word for moon, yes.

[Solar Legion]

Oy ...

So to recap: The usual gripe dump by someone looking to get back at those who have wronged them while wanting to use it as an excuse to have the service reshaped into their vision opens the thread and is continued/built upon/altered when challenged over many, many pages. The usual suspects that gleefully wish for much the same come out of the wodwork in attempt to aid the OP. A few sincere people chime in both for and against. One or two people get sucked/suckered in by the OP's antics, believing them to have a good point (as sometimes happens - part of how they're able to stick around).

[Dyna Mole]

It's time for a friendly reminder .... The OP's original statement set the framework for a discussion about "The problem of how to have a civil society online".  Somewhere in the past couple of pages, the conversation veered way off topic.  Let's try to yank it back again. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

To bring this back to more explicitly to the point . . .

It is in no one's best interests, really, to have an internet, or a platform, be it a virtual world or a social media site, that permits anything and everything.

And that's because incivility and the articulation of hate don't nurture free thought: they kill it. So-called "PC" culture isn't about restricting what people can believe or advocate -- it sets the ground rules for civil and thoughtful discussions. Because you can't have a civil conversation with someone employing an ad hominem to denigrate or dismiss you. Calling someone an "SJW" or "PC" or, for that matter (in my view) a "TERF," doesn't enable intelligent discussion: it shuts it down by reducing one's opponent to a cardboard stereotype, and attack who they are rather than interrogating what they have to say.

You don't believe that women are really subjected to more violence and repression than men? Fine, let's have that discussion -- I've got a mountain of stats and analysis to throw at you. But if you're going to start by dismissively reducing me to an internet meme, we're not going to be able to have that discussion.

Enforcing basic rules of civility -- don't use slurs, don't use ad hominems, etc. -- also makes good business sense.

Back in the "Good Old Days" here, on these forums, when they were deeply and disturbingly toxic, there were a number of regulars who had a grand time slinging around the mud. If you had the stomach for it, it was "fun" in the way that watching buildings being demolished is "fun." But people also fled the forums en masse -- many of the regulars posting here now among them.

Those were voices, important and valuable voices, being excluded from the conversation. We have all gained immeasurably by the fact that the forums are now a much more "safe" space for people who don't want to be continually ducking toxic garbage.

If you want your "metaverse" or social media platform to succeed -- i.e., avoid becoming nothing more than the playground for nasty and toxic players -- you need to make it welcoming, inclusive, and, yes, "safe." The OP's suggestion of opening up the forum to "naming and shaming" will have exactly the opposite effect. And people will leave, by the score.

You also need a good and enforceable rating system, that recognizes that not everyone is on your platform for the same reasons, and that enables them to customize their experience so that it works for them. And SL's rating system in-world actually does that. There's some evidence that something similar is being put in place here, on the forums, as well. And I think that's a good thing.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
Wrong word. Grammar! Grrr.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Dyna Mole said:

It's time for a friendly reminder .... The OP's original statement set the framework for a discussion about "The problem of how to have a civil society online".  Somewhere in the past couple of pages, the conversation veered way off topic.  Let's try to yank it back again. 

Thanks, @Dyna Mole! 

[Ceka Cianci]

Like the old saying goes, 

Too much a them innernets is not good for your outternets.

- John 3:16

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The OP's suggestion that opening up the forum to "naming and shaming" will have exactly the opposite effect. And people will leave, by the score.

I thought there was a suggestion in there for subforum(s) where problems could be hashed out. Leading to a more civil society online, once the hash is done and salted (so to speak). This subforum being the "court" I think. Anyway, that part of the suggestion stuck out for me.

Anyway, my own suggestion on how to have a civil society online is somewhat vague but at the same time pointed: section 230 may have served its purpose in helping the innerwebs birth and grow, but it's not working now.
 

Something different / better is needed. Not extreme moderation, and not a free-for-all with no consequences (which is what we seem to actually have now). And not "censorship" like the innerwebs in some countries. 

[Luna Bliss]

* researching Hegel force, hoping I'm not possessed by it....

[Silent Mistwalker]

15 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Like the old saying goes, 

Too much a them innernets is not good for your outternets.

- John 3:16

Hm. I must have bought the wrong bible. I thought it was Ceka 4:20. 🤔

[Scylla Rhiadra]

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I thought there was a suggestion in there for subforum(s) where problems could be hashed out. Leading to a more civil society online, once the hash is done and salted (so to speak). This subforum being the "court" I think. Anyway, that part of the suggestion stuck out for me.

Anyway, my own suggestion on how to have a civil society online is somewhat vague but at the same time pointed: section 230 may have served its purpose in helping the innerwebs birth and grow, but it's not working now.
 

Something different / better is needed. Not extreme moderation, and not a free-for-all with no consequences (which is what we seem to actually have now). And not "censorship" like the innerwebs in some countries. 

I really and truly doubt that such a subforum would become anything more than a shooting gallery. If Prok's point is a version of the old adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant -- that making disputes open and public would help resolve them -- shunting them off into a side forum is going to be ineffective.

How about this . . . how about we democratize the process? I mean, really, well and truly.

What about using at least some resident mods in these forums, not merely by "appointment" by LL (I can already hear Prok's protestations about the FIC on that one), but through something like election? And make them responsible to both LL and the resident community in some way? Term limits, recalls, whatever -- I'm sure a mechanism can be found.

Something somewhat similar could be used in-world, but, again, with mechanisms in place to ensure that it doesn't itself become of a form of bullying, nepotism, or vigilantism. The rights of individual landowners needn't be infringed upon, I don't think.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I really and truly doubt that such a subforum would become anything more than a shooting gallery.

For most disputes, it will be like shooting fish in a barrel.. 🙂

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

How about this . . . how about we democratize the process? I mean, really, well and truly.

What about using at least some resident mods in these forums, not merely by "appointment" by LL (I can already hear Prok's protestations about the FIC on that one), but through something like election? And make them responsible to both LL and the resident community in some way? Term limits, recalls, whatever -- I'm sure a mechanism can be found.

Similar to a suggestion I made somewhere back on an early page, but I like your idea of "democratizing" it. So far as I know, the only "special power" some forum residents have is, no wait time between posts. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

22 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I really and truly doubt that such a subforum would become anything more than a shooting gallery. If Prok's point is a version of the old adage that sunlight is the best disinfectant -- that making disputes open and public would help resolve them -- shunting them off into a side forum is going to be ineffective.

How about this . . . how about we democratize the process? I mean, really, well and truly.

What about using at least some resident mods in these forums, not merely by "appointment" by LL (I can already hear Prok's protestations about the FIC on that one), but through something like election? And make them responsible to both LL and the resident community in some way? Term limits, recalls, whatever -- I'm sure a mechanism can be found.

Something somewhat similar could be used in-world, but, again, with mechanisms in place to ensure that it doesn't itself become of a form of bullying, nepotism, or vigilantism. The rights of individual landowners needn't be infringed upon, I don't think.

SyFy tried that way back when their forums were still SciFi. It didn't work. The bullies still managed to talk their way out of being banned while the victims either were suspended/banned or had to leave the forum. 

[Love Zhaoying]

Perhaps the function of sites like 4chan, is to give all the "outliers" a place to "talk amongst themselves".

If that does lead to a less civil internet overall, and also somehow leads to horrific RL things happening, then that's not good.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

SyFy tried that way back when their forums were still SciFi. It didn't work. The bullies still managed to talk their way out of being banned while the victims either were suspended/banned or had to leave the forum. 

I agree it might not work, but I'm not sure what we currently have -- and I'm thinking as much or more about inworld than here, because mostly (despite my own occasional griping), the current system does work here. A lot of thought would certainly have to go onto it.

The biggest problem as I see it is scaling. How do you police a really large platform effectively? That's where some form of community policing, not actually THAT much different than allowing landowners to police their own land, might be effective.

I think LL has been on the right track, mostly, and community policing makes sense in a world where so much else is created and governed by residents. Adding a more democratic element keeps the dynamic of power between platform owner, landowner, and resident in balance. Maybe.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Perhaps the function of sites like 4chan, is to give all the "outliers" a place to "talk amongst themselves".

If that does lead to a less civil internet overall, and also somehow leads to horrific RL things happening, then that's not good.

Excellent point. If 4Chan kept its garbage in 4Chan, who'd care about the place?

I think there would be spillover here too.

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

Personally, I think 230 is a good thing. Like you say, when anybody can upload anything, you never know what you're gonna get. The problem, as it's been explained to me, is when a site makes it clear they agree with the content they intentionally don't take down, why should they continue to be protected from the consequences of having that content up (assuming the content is something with consequences)?

If they're acting unlawfully in refusing to take down some content when asked/told so to do, then of course there should be consequences, whether in the form of civil damages or criminal fines, which is the approach now taken by both the EU and the UK in impending/recent legislation.  

But I don't see what that has to do with a site, in addition to complying with its legal obligations, moderating content as it sees fit, whether that involves prohibiting discussion of certain topics, or advancing particular views, or constraining posts to 280 characters or in any other way the site owner thinks advisable.   

 

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

If they're acting unlawfully in refusing to take down some content when asked/told so to do, then of course there should be consequences, whether in the form of civil damages or criminal fines, which is the approach now taken by both the EU and the UK in impending/recent legislation.  

But I don't see what that has to do with a site, in addition to complying with its legal obligations, moderating content as it sees fit, whether that involves prohibiting discussion of certain topics, or advancing particular views, or constraining posts to 280 characters or in any other way the site owner thinks advisable.   

 

Idea for new / replacement section 230: Sites may not be "responsible" but..if they don't make a "good faith" attempt to moderate (self-moderate and/or respond to user reports that moderation is needed), then they can be liable for lawsuits, etc.  

I mean, why not? Providing the "impenetrable shield" for all cases is ridiculous. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

16 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

How do you police a really large platform effectively?

You don't. And that is where LL has it right. They don't do any more policing that what is necessary to maintain at least a semblance of order. 

We already have the ability to AR someone. Any more authority than that will be abused even more than the AR system already is. Don't think I need remind you of AR parties. *cough*RedZone*cough*

It's the same in RL, difference is you call the police and not the major's office. Other than that, you go down to your nearest precinct and file formal complaint. Don't know if it can be done online. I doubt in some small cities and most small towns.

Policing a large platform online isn't any different than policing a RL area. You're still dealing with humans and they're still going to pull the same stupid human tricks.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

30 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

How do you police a really large platform effectively?

You don't. And that is where LL has it right. They don't do any more policing that what is necessary to maintain at least a semblance of order. 

We already have the ability to AR someone. Any more authority than that will be abused even more than the AR system already is. Don't think I need remind you of AR parties. *cough*RedZone*cough*

It's the same in RL, difference is you call the police and not the major's office. Other than that, you go down to your nearest precinct and file formal complaint. Don't know if it can be done online. I doubt in some small cities and most small towns.

Policing a large platform online isn't any different than policing a RL area. You're still dealing with humans and they're still going to pull the same stupid human tricks.

Some other, large platforms *cough* facebook *cough* are (hopefully made to feel) really embarrassed when it turns out red flag posts were ignored, then something Really Bad happens.  That can't happen here! We are small enough to make sure it doesn't. 

Right?

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Some other, large platforms *cough* facebook *cough* are (hopefully made to feel) really embarrassed when it turns out red flag posts were ignored, then something Really Bad happens.  That can't happen here! We are small enough to make sure it doesn't. 

Right?

I'd love to confirm that so everyone feels better but, no, we can't always nip it in the bud. RZ would never have gotten off the ground if that were the case. There are other things that have occurred over the years, but I'm not interested in stirring any of those pots. 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

RZ

What is? Oh, Red Zone.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Policing a large platform online isn't any different than policing a RL area. You're still dealing with humans and they're still going to pull the same stupid human tricks.

Ahah! If same stupid tricks, then all we need do is train smart AI to detect stupid trick patterns!

[Ayashe Ninetails]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ahah! If same stupid tricks, then all we need do is train smart AI to detect stupid trick patterns!

Moderation bot AI is not very smart. 😂

[Love Zhaoying]

26 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Moderation bot AI is not very smart. 😂

I've got it! Design Captchas that are just a little too hard for the dumbest users, and that will keep them out! 
*Edit* Or, redirect those who fail to a special forum / site for the "comprehension challenged", which can have "special moderation".

Edited June 3, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Love Zhaoying]

LL is getting a free Focus Group here..