Gathering my thoughts on moderation at TSZ, I found that I really have two OPs to write: one discussing the effects of rules and moderation at TSZ, and another exploring why the moderation — particularly the Guano-related stuff — has those effects. The second topic is by far the more interesting, but it’s the first topic that has the most practical import, so I’ll address it now.
In a nutshell: We’ve already experimented with different levels of moderation at TSZ, and the results are in. Less moderation works better.
Some preliminaries:
This is Lizzie’s blog, so of course any decisions regarding rules and moderation are hers alone to make.
None of us are absolutists about free speech or moderation, as far as I can tell. We all seem to agree that some moderation is necessary — to get rid of spammers or to prevent pseudonymous commenters from being outed, for example. The disputes are over the degree, not the fact, of moderation.
The optimal level of moderation may shift over time as a blog and its commentariat evolve. There is no single guaranteed-for-all-time optimal moderation scheme, and no comprehensive “moderation theory” for deciding ahead of time which scheme is most likely to succeed. Experimentation is essential.
With the preliminaries out of the way, the argument is quite simple, and I’ve already expressed it on another thread:
The ultimate test for any moderation scheme is how well it works in reality, with the actual commenters and the actual moderators. We’ve already run many such (informal) experiments at TSZ, and the results seem clear to me: Changes in the direction of more moderation have backfired, and changes in the direction of less moderation have made TSZ run more smoothly and with more on-topic, substantive discussion.
For all our disagreements, Alan and I both think that the experiment we tried in Lizzie’s absence was a success. If you recall, the policy during that time was to move comments to Guano only upon request (of the “injured” party originally, though that was broadened for some reason to include third parties).
Since that experiment worked so well, and since attempts at increased moderation (like the Wine Cellar, to use a recent example) have failed, why not take the lesson to heart and eliminate moderation altogether, except in the extreme cases where we all agree it’s necessary (spam/porn/outing etc.)?
It fits with the ethos here at TSZ, it minimizes the workload for the moderators, and it eliminates the reason for the numerous and lengthy moderation discussions we have here at TSZ, again and again.
Seems like a worthwhile experiment, doesn’t it?
TSZ was nearly stagnant until Lizzie re-emerged. You call that a ‘success’?
I find ‘keiths’ to be one of 3 or 4 ugly, arrogant atheists at TSZ. These people are not concerned with the good of others, just with promoting atheism. They seem incorrigible. Many others here come across as decent people, when they are not proselytising atheism or scientism against human dignity.
keiths wants chaos, anarchy and unrest. He wants atheism spread. Is this a cause for which Lizzie started TSZ?
I wouldn’t visit a place that played by ‘keiths’ (lack of) rules.
p.s. ‘commentariats’ don’t simply ‘evolve’; instead, people make intentional choices.
I have no objection!
I do.
This place has rules. They are of two sorts: one sort applies everywhere (outing, porn. malware) and violations incur a ban.
The second sort governs discourse on the main page. I set this site up because I wanted a site with some basic rules. Posts that violate these “game rules” are moved off the main page, usually to Guano.
There is no point in having rules if there is no quid pro quo, and that is the quid pro quo. I am prepared to modify the rules, if I am persuaded that the modification is an improvement (I’m thinking of dropping the “address the post not the poster” one, as I think the important aspects of it are subsumed under the “good faith” rule). But I do intend to see they are enforced, if sloppily (“sloppy reinforcement” is a Thing).
And there may be waves of greater moderation if I think standards have slipped. I’m not operating a legal system here, just trying to promote and maintain a standard of discourse we can all enjoy.
I’m pleased to hear that things worked well in my absence, and I’m really grateful to Alan et al for keeping things going. But I suggest that the more traffic a site gets, the more active management it requires, and the traffic has hugely increased recently. What works well for a small group may not work so well for a larger one.
So no, I’m not going to drop moderation.
Moved one post to Guano.
Elizabeth,
If there’s a substantive disagreement between you and keiths here, it’s not entirely apparent to me.
“No moderation except in extreme cases” seems consistent with “extreme cases = porn, malware, outing of pseudonyms contributors merits a ban, and personal attacks are sent to Guano.”
Granted, I’m not an admin and I don’t actually know what you guys do. Generally speaking I’d support anything that makes your lives easier, since this blog is run entirely pro bono and I doubt it’s cheap. (For that matter, if you wanted to set up a PayPal account so we could donate for expenses, I’d support that entirely.)
Well, Keiths presumably thinks that the rate of guanoing has stepped up since I came back, as it contrasts with the prelapsarian state before I did.
KN,
Seconded. I would be happy to contribute.
Lizzie,
I do, but I don’t blame you for that. You didn’t see the results of the experiment, after all, because it happened in your absence! How could you have known?
Lizzie,
Right, and I know you set up those rules with absolutely the best of intentions. They were certainly worth trying, and we gave them a long and fair trial. The problem is that their net effect is negative — they backfire by creating much more of a distraction than the behavior they are intended to address. (More on this in part 2 of my OP.)
Exactly, which is why it’s so important to pay attention to what actually does and doesn’t work, regardless of the theory behind it, and to re-evaluate periodically as the blog and its commentariat evolve. Unanticipated side effects can make a big difference.
At times they worked well, but at other times quite poorly.
There was significant moderation-induced turbulence, including a censorship fiasco so dire that Patrick felt obligated to intervene.
Alan and I agree that things worked quite well when comments were moved to Guano by request only, and to me that suggests that they might work better still if comments were simply left alone.
Bruce agrees:
KN also seems to think that it’s worth a try.
The evidence to date suggests that TSZ has worked best when moderation is lightest, and we always have the option of tightening things up as needed. Why not give the minimalist approach a try, with moderation only in case of spam/porn/outing or similar offenses?
Well, I can get data.
But there is a confound, which I mentioned.
I agree with this.
But I do think the odd purge sometimes works. But best of all, I’ve found, is good content, and leading by example.
It looks like there is a buyout on the table. 2 USAmericans promoting ‘no moderation’ want to buyout Lizzie’s ‘skeptical’ blog.
That was not my reading.
Well, I appreciate the offer of financial support. Right now, I can afford it, and I’m happy to continue with the experiment in (hopefully) benign dictatorship it affords me 🙂
I don’t think it’s a bad model for an internet discussion group. Works for Kos.
A crap model for a nation, of course, but an internet discussion group is not a nation in many important senses.
Gregory’s readings are often at odds with mine.
Lizzie,
Oh, I wasn’t suggesting that you’d have to surrender your dictatorial powers in exchange for the loot. 🙂 I just think (and I suspect KN would agree) that commenters should be able to offset some of the financial burden, with you in full control as before.
Elizabeth,
Nice then that we agreed keiths ‘no moderation’ proposal is (ahem) ‘misguided’.
keiths,
Yes, “offset some of the financial burden” USA style colonialism. 😉
It is scary to think he teaches. Let’s hope his courses are elective.
I now have a better sense of the parameters of the conversation — sorry, I was kind of checked out of the earlier discussion. It seems that the debate here is about whether, and by how much, moderators should move posts to Guano when they violate the site rules (e.g. assume the other person is posting in good faith). Is that we’re talking about? Because if so, I’m with Lizzie. That is to say, I’m in favor of moderators moving to Guano posts that cross the line from substantive disagreement to personal attack (which does happen with alarming regularity).
A fuzzier case would be something that I did earlier today — responded to one of Murray’s posts with sarcasm. Clearly that’s not substantive disagreement — it was pretty immature of me — so it seems to be a violation of the site rules, even though it wasn’t a personal attack. Mockery directed towards a view that someone has seems to be a problematic case.
For what it’s worth, I think that mockery and sarcasm should be strongly discouraged, but that it’s not Guano-worthy when it does occur.
Yes, that’s my view. A little ridicule is fair enough, I think, but I would like to encourage a more positive style of engagement, which I’m pleased to see often occurs, and I always admire your posts KN, even when they are above my head.
Yes, I know that’s what you meant 🙂 And the offer is very much appreciated.
I’ll let you know when I’m skint 🙂
Kantian Naturalist,
Mockery and sarcasm are two of the three legs upon which I stand!
Or below the belt? 🙂
Seriously, thank you very much!
I’m in for funding. $100 for Mungs wisdom seems a bargain.
I find it interesting that the complaints about moderation come from a few individuals. I can’t recall having a post moved to guano. I suppose it’s happened, but I can’t recall ever thinking it was unjust.
And I’ve never held back or avoided expressing an opinion.
Man, this site becomes more and more like UD every day. 😉
I’m not putting in a nickel a word if that’s what you guys are hinting at.
{And don’t pretend I’m not talking about you, Bruce!}
Nobody has to put in any nickels. I’m in the lucky position of working too damn hard at a reasonably well-paid job to have any time to spend what I earn, so I have enough to pay the hosting fees etc for TSZ.
I’d like to work less and earn less, and when that happens, I’ll let you all know 🙂
KN:
Allan:
There’s good ridicule/mockery/sarcasm and bad ridicule/mockery/sarcasm. Mocking the nose of someone you disagree with — bad. Mocking the views of someone you disagree with, by pointing out the ridiculous aspects — good.
Larry Moran provides an example of the latter:
Sam Harris using ridicule to excellent effect.
I don’t think this blog would be well served by having zero moderation beyond the banning offenses. It could become flooded with content-free flames. [Casts a stern glance in the direction of Lithuania]
So I agree with Lizzie’s approach of having Guano for rule-breaking posts, with a very light touch. Enforcement will always be “sloppy”, either due to differences of perception or mere inattention. I do think that the “address the post, not the poster” rule is problematic, since some posters have a pattern of behavior which is IMHO a valid topic of conversation.
I am NOT a fan of the only-Guano-upon-request rule, as I believe that this encourages whining about posts that someone feels should be Guano-ed. I would never wish for this endless claiming of victimhood to be censored, but it stinks of adolescent entitlement and is unseemly. [Glances sternly at the USA]
Rather, I think we should, as a community, accept that some Guano-worthy posts will survive, but the worst excesses will be moved, and accept that the decisions may not always appear just to us. But act like adults and quit the whingeing. [Waves cheerily at other parts of Europe]
No, nor me.
Well, complaining about moderation doesn’t seem to be correlated with who has been getting moved to guano.
God, I spent all that time counting people’s guano comments yesterday, and now I’ve already forgotten where I posted the results. Idiot.
I have more than a couple of guano’d comments in the last two months, and I think there should be more moderation around here, not less, even though I might get stung by it once in a while.
The moderation level here should be set to encourage people to “play nice” — and it’s self-defeating to complain, because every game has rules. If it doesn’t, or if the rules are never enforced, it just turns into garbage. Not as if we don’t all know that from personal experience (in internet and “real world” both).
DNA_Jock:
It’s quite facile and self-serving to dismiss others’ complaints as “whingeing” while treating your own as substantive.
Actually, it had the opposite effect — particularly when the “injured” party was the only one allowed to request moderation.
Going the extra step to the minimalist approach reduces the “whining” almost to zero: no one can complain about unfair or inconsistent moderation when moderation isn’t even an option. (You would get an occasional complaint from someone who thought that moderation should be reinstated, though. But that’s far better than the situation we have now.)
The latter may be good(*), but it is difficult to achieve. Much easier is mocking a caricature of the views of someone you disagree with.
(*) I’m lying here. I think mockery is completely corrosive of any kind of reasoned discussion. It can be useful as a sort of social control, to discourage beliefs that you consider harmful, but it’s basically coercive.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, it’s gotta be watched by someone sensitive. That’s for sure!
Yeah, and my vote doesn’t count.
Because I’m on the wrong side.
Or something.
But what keiths thinks does count.
Because keiths is on the right side.
Or something.
True, that; but I have only seen a handful of complaints here that weren`t “whingeing”, and they didn`t come from me…so not guilty as charged.
Our perceptions differ.
True that zero moderation should reduce (but not eliminate) complaints about moderation, but whether that is “far better than the situation we have now” depends on whether a whiney meta-discussion about moderation is more disruptive than incessant flame-wars.
YMMV.
I’m in the low / no moderation camp. The only “plus” I can see is that people may tone down what they say if they don’t want their post moved. Sometimes, you don’t care – if the person is watching you’ll say it anyway, if they see it the message is conveyed and that’s enough: For example, WJM is a disingenuous dipshit.
I’m all for setting a good example by postiing substantive comments only. I try to do that. Well, limp irony and bad jokes aside, I try to do that. ( Though I am glad to see walto following my lead that on second habit at least).
But to Keith’s point, has it made any difference?
And besides the pragmatic question of effectiveness, there is a principled question of free speech versus hate speech: should hate speech be outlawed? Or should each person have the opportunity to assess a post for him or herself? I think this is one area of law/government where US does better than my country, Canada, which has anti-hate speech laws whereas the US supreme court ruled them unconstitutional, I believe.
(It’s about the only area of law/government where I prefer the US model, however.)
Of course, Elizabeth sets the constitution here, not the Founding Persons. I also understand that you can always go to Guano to see any post, and that there is a certain illicit thrill in doing that.
BTW, I agree number of posts has increased recently, but I’m not so sure about number of posters. I believe that metric is smaller than a year ago and has not changed recently, plus or minus one.
BruceS,
“If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”
Noam Chomsky
BruceS,
Wikipedia entry on U.S. hatespeech law:
United States
Constitutional framework
The 1789 Constitution of the United States of America dealt only with the three heads of power—legislative, executive, and judicial—and sketched the basic outlines of federalism in the last four articles. The protection of civil rights was not written into the original Constitution but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although this section is written only to apply to the federal congress (i.e. the legislative branch), the 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, works to extend this prohibition to laws of the states as well.
Some state constitutions also have a “free speech” provision, most notably, California.[77]
Supreme Court case law
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: “There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”[78]
Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate-filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”[79]
This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[80] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[81] The opinion noted “This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property”, among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.
In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn’t promote imminent violence. The Court explained, “speech deals with matters of public concern when it can ‘be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ or when it ‘is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.” [82]
Societal implementation
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating “hate speech” by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a “hostile or offensive working environment” for other employees.[83][84]
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted “speech codes” regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[85] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[86] Debate over restriction of “hate speech” in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[87]
NTIA report
In 1992, Congress directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to examine the role of telecommunications, including broadcast radio and television, cable television, public access television, and computer bulletin boards, in advocating or encouraging violent acts and the commission of hate crimes against designated persons and groups. The NTIA study investigated speech that fostered a climate of hatred and prejudice in which hate crimes may occur.[88] The study failed to link telecommunication to hate crimes, but did find that “individuals have used telecommunications to disseminate messages of hate and bigotry to a wide audience.” Its recommendation was that the best way to fight hate speech was through additional speech promoting tolerance, as opposed to government regulation.[89][90]
I’m a hundred percent in favor of this stance. You know I am because you’ve seen me do it here at TSZ.
And I don’t see it as conflicting with my general stance that moving-to-guano is good.
I think it’s a win-win. I get the satisfaction of being as rude as I need to be when I really feel pushed to it, and then it gets put away in the guano-closet and isn’t cluttering up the room for discussion afterwards, while reminding me that saying rude things is probably not a worthwhile end in itself.
After all, I’m not getting paid here to be a shock jock. It’s literally no harm to me if rules (external to my own sense of allowable insult) restrain me once in a while from winding myself up as much as I otherwise might. Moderation is a positive good.
Steve,
I disagree. While mockery can be corrosive, I think it can also be constructive, by encouraging people to re-examine beliefs they had taken for granted. Think of Rabbi Wolpe — do you think he saw his argument in the same light after Harris’s takedown?
The people for whom mockery is corrosive are those who simply shut down when challenged, seeing the mockery as evidence that the Others are evil, or irrational, or otherwise unworthy of consideration. But there are people who don’t react that way.
The Internet didn’t exist when I began to question my faith, but if it had, it would have helped — and I believe that ridicule would have been one of the reasons. When someone mocks our beliefs, especially if they do it in an insightful way, we really want to prove them wrong. To do that, we have to engage their arguments, which involves (ideally) looking for the weakest spots in our own position and seeing if they are defensible. It can be a shock to discover that your beliefs aren’t defensible — I know, because I lived through that experience — but it can also be a profound life lesson.
There are people who need the kind of jolt that ridicule provides to motivate them to re-evaluate their beliefs. Others will find that it accelerates the process. For people in both these categories, ridicule can be a spur to a deeper and critical examination of their beliefs, and I think that is a good thing.
hotshoe,
We just tried that. It was called the “W(h)ine Cellar”, and it didn’t work.
I disagree. I think the moderation level should be set to give the best results consistent with TSZ’s philosophy of openness and minimal censorship and intervention.
Our ‘experiment’ suggests otherwise. In any case, no one is suggesting that we eliminate all of the rules.
Each blog is unique, and blogs and their commenters change over time. Rules that work now might not work if 50 Gregories show up tomorrow. That’s why it’s important to look at what works and what doesn’t, in reality and not in theory, and be prepared to adjust course as necessary.
I’m personally willing to take the chance that mocking beliefs has these kinds of benefits, as compared to the chance that it backfires and creates more resistance where a “slowly, slowly” soft-toned approach might work better. I don’t think I have the judgement to know in advance which will actually work better with any given person. I just think the odds are reasonable that mockery will work well enough, on average, that I rule it in not rule it out.
Define “didn’t work”.
Define “didn’t work” without regard to your personal perception one way or the other.
Yup. I’d be willing to bet that he thought Harris’s ridicule was directed at a caricature of his beliefs, or was simply irrelevant to them.
My experience is profoundly different from yours. Almost invariably, when my beliefs have been mocked my impression was that the other party was misrepresenting those beliefs, usually in a ham-handed way. The net result was to convince me that they were incapable of nuance and too hostile for me to want to be around. And when I have found my beliefs changing in response to social pressure, I’ve realized that it was not because I’d been provoked to deeper thought, but because as a social being I’m inclined to make my beliefs conform to those around me. This makes me deeply suspicious of attempts to use social pressure to impose belief. (In my experience, mockery is largely directed not at beliefs, but at an audience; without an approving audience, it loses most of its effectiveness.)
keiths:
DNA_Jock:
You’re complaining in this very thread, about “whining” and “whingeing”, “adolescent entitlement” and “unseemly” behavior, and the USA vs Europe. But of course your complaints are always strictly substantive, right?
keiths:
DNA_Jock:
The flame-wars aren’t “incessant”. The flare-ups generally die out pretty quickly, but the moderation discussions go on and on and on.
Many thanks to moderators and admins here and to Lizzie. I appreciate what you’ve done. I get treated better here than anywhere else. Thank you.