In the context of recent comments[1][2] made by the admin, I feel the need to bring up some thoughts I have on the relationships between free speech, moderation, impartiality and social issues.
For a start, I need to point out that science – the study and exploration of the unknown – is wrought with politics and social biases. Science could not be conducted without the exchange and preservation of information. Consider the endpoints and media of these exchanges of information. Humans preserve knowledge by storing it within their minds and/or inscribing it onto external media, and then communicating to others how and where to extract this information through social interactions.
Humans are biased and prone to irrationality. We know this. We know that biases dictate the rules and dynamics of social interaction, and that irrationality feeds into the formation of biases and vice versa. There is no such thing as an objective mind or impartial act; at best it is ignorance that counteracts one’s biases, and this is how we try to conduct science. But we can not get any science done by only ever making blind choices in the interest of impartiality and fairness. We have to use moral judgement and intuition in order to make choices. What to research; how to interpret partial data; what conclusions to draw based on limited knowledge; how to even draw conclusions; what questions to ask; what answers to expect; what methods to use; whose interest to serve while prioritising.
The notion that you can just “be rational” and “stick to the science” is misguided. It prevents us from identifying our blindspots and biases. Recognising and acknowledging our limitations in perspective and understanding is vital to our efforts to deepen and widen our understanding of – and existence within – the natural world.
Let’s consider what this means for members of a community such as this instance. When you are exposed to information – whether misleading, false, essential or true – what dictates your response to it is primarily a non-conscious process involving emotions, cognitive/physical state, innate primal instincts, etc. Your ability to reason only ever presents itself after your brain has interpreted the input signals and triggered an autonomic response. For many people, the non-conscious process can in some cases negatively affect their mental or even physical state in a very real and serious way (due to implications, extrapolations or associations of certain types of information - could be tragedy/gore/harassment or more complex triggers), often preventing them from dealing with it in a healthy and constructive manner. It’s more nuanced than simply having or not having a (C-)PTSD diagnosis, and it is no one else’s business to judge whether a person’s inner experience is valid or that they should “suck it up” and “learn to deal with it”. Unless one is an anti-social prick who thinks “survival of the fittest” makes for an excellent slogan and moral basis for a healthy society, of course.
Let’s now consider how this relates to moderators of a community. If someone is responding negatively to some piece of information, one would do well to reflect upon why that may be, and what, if anything, can be reasonably done to prevent that. It is the task a moderator should be concerned with, so that they can form a basis for judgement. Sometimes a person can’t be helped; sometimes it isn’t in a group’s interest to even attempt to fix a person’s personal issues. But it is worth considering the implications when making a choice in who to accommodate. The choice may be passive or active. The former could be letting each person moderate their own experience; the latter could be defederating from instances that only contribute negatively to your community.
So, who should we accommodate? The anti-social extremist lashing out, ranting about conspiracies at anyone who will listen? Do you listen in the hope that it makes them (and… you?) better people or do you shut the door to spare the rest of the room?
What about the trans person ranting about frequent harassment? Do you listen and consider their situation or do you let them figure it out on their own?
What about the autistic science nerd that gets upset over systematic disinformation and pseudoscientific posts populating their feed (and, by induction, everyone else’s)? Do you crack down on those posters or let the nerds fight their own battle in the free marketplace of ideas (I mean, they’re the rational ones with science on their side so they would surely win - sorry, had to sneak in a bit of diatribe)?
What purpose does unconditional (barring illegal conduct and spam) federation serve this instance? Who in this place appreciates the content and values sported by the people over at exploding-heads (for reasons other than absolute principles of freedom)? Forget breaking rules or laws; what potential value does a hypothetical Nazi or religious extremist group bring to this place? In whose interest is this instance acting when making (in)decisions about what other platforms are free to interact with (or at) us?
How do we expect this place to evolve over time as people who appreciate the moderation style here trickle in and remain active while people who are uncomfortable with it slowly evaporate?
I appreciate the considered response.
Let me prefix that I am stubborn as well, but in the opposite direction. I would rather have a dead forum than one full of toxic discourse. If discussion is going to make people feel worse and not be of any real benefit to anyone, it might as well not take place at all. It’s similar to the issue of being open-minded; if your mind is too open your brain may just fall out and you would have been better off just being overly skeptical. There’s no benefit to absorbing any and all things presented to you, and presenting it as some sort of virtue is weird. You may not think you are (or maybe you do), but you are implicitly presenting it as a virtue when you tell individuals to actively filter their own content. It becomes whack-a-mole for each and every one of us and by making toxic content visible the default, it suggests that blocking it is just like a personal prerogative. That the person is somehow sensitive for not wanting those turds floating around and you keep allowing the same people to continue to pour buckets of turds into their pool.
The problem is greater than that. As long as we are federated with instances rife with bad actors, their posts, comments and votes will appear in communities we are subscribed to as well. Fortunately (well, in a sense), most instances are better moderated than this one and so communities hosted on their instances will not be accessible to the worst instances. Their protection then extends to us (well… whoever ends up sticking around), but there’s nothing preventing hate groups from harassing people here via communities on this instance, via PMs, or communities on other unmoderated instances.
Whether you have “run into” bad content or not is irrelevant. If members of this instance are made uncomfortable by what they see in All, in comments here and there, or worse, in PMs, that becomes your problem because you are responsible for what type of content this place allows. I hope you read the article about evaporative cooling because regardless of how you feel about people being made to feel merely uncomfortable on your instance, those people will eventually go away and be replaced by people you may not want to represent this place. This will happen slowly and once you realise, it’s probably too late.
Another property of your stance is that it is inherently reactive. You require that people have a sour or harmful experience before maybe taking action, and based on your stated philosophy, probably not nearly as drastic action as would be necessary to really fix the problem. You can’t just ban a person from an instance full of equally ‘bad’ people and expect that to be enough. The core principle of not being presumptuous or excluding may come from a good place, but it’s misapplied and you won’t be appreciated for it by people you would want to appreciate you.
I’m being quite prescriptive here. But to moderate and maintain a healthy community you need to be proactive. Your job as a moderator and admin is to prevent people from having a bad experience. You are not a police officer that goes around punishing people for behaving badly in the name of justice. Banning and defederating is not a device for punishment, it is a tool for carving out your own space. One that reflects your moral values. And yes, your moral values should be reflected in how you run this place, because as I’ve already argued, a person can not be impartial other than by chance. Let people who find your moral framework agreeable come here and subject themselves to your judgement out of trust. That, in my opinion, is how a good, cohesive community organically emerges.
Again, trying to act impartial only obfuscates your biases and people can’t rely on your judgement if they don’t know where they have you. It only opens you up to complaints about arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of whatever rules you may eventually come up with.