We are now over 200 users and may see significantly more in the coming days and weeks.
Our instance is new, Lemmy is new to most of us, and there just isn’t the history needed to approach appropriate people and ask them to be moderators. So I’m taking applications instead.
It’s worth noting that moderation has not been an issue for us so far, but I’d like to be prepared.
There are two types of moderators I’m looking for. It will be easier to find the first than the second, so for the first type I’m keen to find people not in an NZ time zone to cover times when NZ is normally asleep. The types I’ve after are:
- Remove obviously not allowed content:
- Trolling or posts obviously trying to cause harm
- Animal abuse
- CSAM
- Doxing and violations of court ordered name suppressions
- Any other content illegal in NZ
- Grey area moderators
Rather than just banning people that don’t agree, I want to foster a community where everyone that wants to participate in good faith can, regardless of their views. I want this to be a community where everyone feels safe to be themselves. This can sound contradictory, but as long as we can attack ideas and not people, I believe there is a possibility to find our spot somewhere along this path.
This means that I don’t want to ban users that use derogatory terms, I want it to be the start of a discussion about why they are hurtful. I don’t want to remove racist comments, I want it to be the start of a discussion about what is and isn’t acceptable in our community. If everyone acts in good faith, we should be able to have these discussions respectfully. If people start commenting in bad faith, then this may require more traditional moderator interventions (e.g. temporary or permanent bans, and potential removal of content). Note that moderator actions are transparent, and listed in the “Modlog” linked at the bottom of every page (this includes moderator actions on other instances to some extent).
So I am taking applications from people willing to facilitate the discussions for this second type of content. I recognise this is a much bigger burden than the first type, but I hope we will have some volunteers willing to give it a go.
If you want to volunteer, note that a requirement will be that you’re willing and able to join a private Matrix chat room for moderators and admins where discussion can happen. This will be helpful for type 1 moderators too, in case there is confusion over what is type 1 content.
Note that moderators can be by community. If you’re keen to moderate e.g. just !wellington@lemmy.nz, then please include this in your “application”.
No need for life stories, just comment on your interest and, if relevant, some history or background of your moderation activities. You can reply here or DM me if you don’t want to post publicly, either is fine.
We cannot have a good-faith discussion with nazis (or tankies), that’s a losing proposition from the outset. We do not need to have a discussion about why the N word is a beyond the pale. We do not need to have a discussion about why genocide denial is wrong. Doing so just gives those ideas a platform.
The only response to those people that saves moderation energy for more productive activities is the ban hammer. Cut it off at the source.
I do not disagree. But I also think that many commonly used terms can stop people feeling safe and respected, and these should prompt a discussion.
I also don’t think we can know where the line is just yet, but I agree that extreme left or right viewpoints are typically not able to be had in good faith, and we don’t want to give them a platform. We do have to be careful, because traditionally non-mainstream platforms were where people went when they were kicked off reddit, not people who wanted to leave. However, overt nazism is not the only way to be racist, and often it can happen without thought.
I’m keen to find people willing to help me get this balance right - I am against banning anyone who disagrees with the opinions of the general consensus.
I’d question the extreme left vs extreme right approach - extreme left views tend to be “what if we had UBI” or “can communism work?”
The extreme right is arguing about people’s right to exist. They’re not equivalent.
I would not consider “what if we had UBI” to be extreme left.
Extreme left to me is authorotarian, Marxism-Leninism style oppression. But I’ll admit the term is used to mean different things.
No problem with banning authoritarianism. Say no to the Holodomor.
The counter point to this is the number of people who get banned, usually by bots, for talking about cigarettes or vehicle transmissions. Reddit definitely went too far, we need to find a middle ground.
Agreed, there’s plenty of grey area about what might be appropriate online. But, there’s plenty that’s not appropriate anywhere. I feel a list of what’s not appropriate is the right way to go. Anytime we find things that are the grey area that’s the opportunity for a discussion.
I’m against a list. I want a community where it’s obvious things are not allowed. I don’t want to have a list that we have to point to. I just want to be open about what we are doing in terms of moderation, and let the community guide this.
Here’s an argument against listing rules: https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/
I also suggest hopping over to https://beehaw.org and reading some pinned posts and sidebar content, they are taking a similar approach that has influenced me, and are growing much faster so we should be able to see there how well it scales.
I’ve read through some of those. Places like beehaw have much stronger entry criteria to vet things like that.
Look, ultimately it’s your instance, so you do you. But I don’t think allowing hate speech or Nazis is a viable place to start a discussion.
We will have a stricter entry criteria over time. That will start when we start to have a problem.
I also expect to need to adjust the approach over time. But surely an instance of a few hundred users can act like adults (famous last words).
She’ll be right, mate.
One of my favourite cases from the site we’re all fleeing from, is a number of mechanical subreddits having to auto ban a word that is a shortened version of transmission, to avoid triggering a ban of the user, and possibly the sub itself.
You can also use something similar to cockney rhyming to get around these bans, such as calling transgender individuals “trains”.
I just don’t get why anyone would say “trains” when “trans” is a letter shorter, and not considered offensive in the community, unless by context, in which case either “trains” or “trans” (or “transgender”, for that matter) would be being used offensively.
I mean, unless you’re punching down on trans people, why would you not just go with “trans”? I can understand the frustration of automod bans for a common shortening of “transmission”, or a very British shortening of “cigarette” - but that’s a solid argument against trying to get automod to police “part-time slurs”, not an argument for tolerating their use as slurs to somehow “further discussion” - if it’s clear in context that it’s being used as a slur, then drop the banhammer. If it’s a matter of people feeling safe to contribute, those who aren’t trying to make other users feel unsafe should be prioritised.
Can’t keep everyone happy, and you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise there will never be an end to the “they’re always changing the rules” argument. If people are mouthing off with slurs, they’re not here for debate, they’re here to shut down debate. They’re not interested in good faith, they’re interested in seeing their transgressive words on screen, they’re interested in upsetting people, laughing at their expense, and moving on if they’re pushed. They’re bullies, and until someone pushes them off it, they will claim this soapbox when they find it.
The key point is that banning words is a blunt instrument that can be easily subverted, which is why I hope we never go down that route.
You need to look at the actual meaning behind what was said.
The moment that this becomes a place where we spoon-feed an education to bad-faith actors, I’m out, and I imagine a lot of others will be too.
Don’t be so concerned about losing bigots that you lose the people impacted by their rhetoric.
I have no concerns with removing bad-faith actors, and I hope I didn’t give the impression that this would be allowed.
The approach you’ve described sounds extremely vulnerable to sealioning.
It’s intended to be the opposite. A list of rules allows someone to point at them saying “I’m not breaking any rules, I’m just trying to have a polite discussion” while being anything but reasonable.
I encourage you to report anything that seems like sealioning. I’m open to changing the approach once we grow to a point that it’s not sustainable, but right now this doesn’t seem to be a problem (at least no one is reporting it).
You are giving that impression, yes.
I intend to do a post to make things clearer, but first I need to seek some feedback on what “clearer” looks like. Hopefully things will get clearer over the next few days.
This is clearer: https://mycrowd.ca/about
Thanks for that. It’s also really long and detailed - so I guess you’re right, it’s very clear. But I really hope we don’t need to break down rules to that level of detail.
@Dave@lemmy.nz I’m partly testing to see if this comment comes through from Akkoma, but I agree with the comment sentiments.
These rules allow for broad sealioning; enabling discussion of racist and derogatory comments is a bad idea. Assuming they are communicating in good faith is a mistake and the sooner you nip bad actors in the bud the better. Speaking from experience.
If you see sealioning, report it. If or when it becomes a problem, we can cross that bridge.
What is being defined as “other content illegal in nz”?
Is that taking a narrow view in line with classifications ratings and other objectionable material rules, or is it ruling out discussion of illegal activities in general. NZTrees for example had people showing off their home grows, which is illegal, but wasn’t harming anyone.
Gardens comes to mind. Not thanking the driver.
Capital punishment worthy stuff generally
In terms of type 1, that would be things that are illegal themselves. As far as I’m aware, posting photos of cannabis is not illegal.
However, we have had a previous discussion and this content can be posted to this other NZ server here.
I’m keen to start using the report feature and know that it’s being responded to. I don’t have the time to be a moderator myself.
We have had reports and they are being looked at :)
I used to mod a NZ sub, small enough, under 2000, solo-mod. Banned 5 people over 2 years. It’s hard to quantify ‘toxic’ but whether it’s a conceit or a gift I simply trust I know it when I see it.
I went dark over the Steve Huffman spez behaviours and have extended the shutdown given his response thus far. I’m personally less than enthusiastic about modding as a group dynamic exercise.
I’m the sort of person who would have to be paid to take others seriously. That said the best moderation comes from larger groups with tight rules [like some of the hard science subs] Studied moderation since the internet began in sociological, psychological, game theory, studied all the fallacies etc etc.
Decades ago there was a site called NewsVine that operated with a code of honour which surprisingly worked in that it allowed people with conflicting views the ability to converse.
I don’t think a proper wheels yet been invented re a moderation template.
Just build something and tweak it as it goes I guess. Good luck.Hey thanks for the input. I have created a post to ask for more input on what should or should not be allowed, and how we enforce that. I’m willing to change to a tight-rule approach if that’s what people want, although it is not what I was hoping for.
Most of the problems I’ve had with Reddit’s moderation hasn’t been from the subreddit itself, it’s been from the admins. They ban at the drop of a hat.
There definitely needs to be a process to deal with people who aren’t willing to engage in good faith, of course.
While there are bad things about the reddit admins, our issue (not as an instance but Lemmy as a whole) is that there is no central authority to raise problems to. As the Lemmyverse grows, I believe we will have many teething issues. But I think we can get through it :)
It’s actually interesting watching the federated Modlog to see what other moderators are doing. My favourite one is the user that was banned with the reason “Asked to be banned”.
The problem is terms like “bad faith” are incredibly vague and subjective. Often people dismiss others who disagree as arguing in bad faith. Sometimes people have fervent beliefs that are very much opposed to your world view.
Hey I wouldn’t mind signing up for some mod activity! I’ve got a background in tech (day job systems engineer) and an interest in modding, though no real world experience outside of a Facebook group with a few thousand members.
Happy to use Matrix (I already host my own Matrix server too :) )
