Right, fediverse, let me know what you think.
-
Right, fediverse, let me know what you think. Long-form comments also welcome.
Mastodon instance moderators should…
@aral I, a non-moderator, want the power to delete OTHER people's posts.
I am a good kitty and can be trusted with this power
-
@aral @staff @haubles Could a third-third (fourth?) way be to mandate a CW rather than hiding it outright, while considering whether to suspend the account?
Deleting posts lets people off the hook too easily, while hiding them provokes more suspicion of moderators than a form of CW would.
Horses for courses, naturally. I only have to worry about one user, and I mostly follow my rules 😂 I'm all for better tools being available for the mods on larger instances though, it affects all of us.
-
@aral I, a non-moderator, want the power to delete OTHER people's posts.
I am a good kitty and can be trusted with this power
-
Right, fediverse, let me know what you think. Long-form comments also welcome.
Mastodon instance moderators should…
@aral
Tbh the way the question is framed (only two options) made me think too fast. Was it a social experiment ?
On second thought, it would not be OK to allow mods to delete toots. Account ban would be appropriate in a violation case, as long as the banned person still can reach out to the mods and also transfer their account to another instance. -
@aral I, a non-moderator, want the power to delete OTHER people's posts.
I am a good kitty and can be trusted with this power
@catsalad Haha, I’ve no doubt ;)
-
Actually, here’s what I really think is lacking: a hide post moderation option in Mastodon.
Instead of deleting posts, moderators should be able to hide posts.
Posts that are hidden by moderators should keep their place in the timeline but state publicly that they were hidden by moderators.
(Servers other than the originating server must treat hidden posts as otherwise deleted and remove their local cache of the content. This is no different to the existing social contact for federated deletes.)
The server should also clearly communicate to the person in question (this can be automated) that their post has been hidden and that they can challenge the decision via regular channels by filing an appeal. (And, if they don’t like the moderation, they can move to a different server, etc., as per usual.)
That would feel much better to me than deleting a post outright and it can be combined with a moderation policy that promises not to delete or edit other people’s posts.
It would also allow for an appeal process and the possible reinstatement of a post should it be found that a moderation error has occurred.
#mastodon #moderation #fediverse #postDeletion #postHiding #authorship #censorship #ownership
I agree 100% with you for the need of a 'post under moderation' flag. That would make mod's work so much easier, also because it removes a lot of pressure to come up with a firm decision taken consensually by a team of volunteers dispersed over all timezones.
Nevertheless, I am still i favour of mods being able to delete posts (there's a lot of heinous shit we don't see because somebody made an early report and the mods could act swiftly on obviously horrible things®).
I mean, moderation errors sometimes happen and post deletions can be already reversed.
On the other side, although I am more on the 'if you don't like your mods decisions, move to another instance'-argument side, the moving costs are too high (you'll loose your posts and sometimes followers) and in practice, at the moment of setting up an account it is not possible to know how moderation rules are enforced on a specific instance.
EDIT: that said, it is of course preferrable when mods contact users with 'hey, for reasons XY we suggest that you delete the post'. But again, this works only for the 'homo fediresponsiblus' kind of person and then there's also the mod-workload thing.
-
@aral
Tbh the way the question is framed (only two options) made me think too fast. Was it a social experiment ?
On second thought, it would not be OK to allow mods to delete toots. Account ban would be appropriate in a violation case, as long as the banned person still can reach out to the mods and also transfer their account to another instance.@Teratogenese Not a social experiment, just an early morning post and severe word limit on poll answers :)
-
(Personally, option 1 feels like a violation to me – content belongs to the author not to the host and moderators should no more be deleting other people’s posts than they should be editing them – while option 2 – especially combined with a limit and/or suspension or the threat thereof – is well within the rights of the host regardless of whether I agree with the actual moderation decision itself. Option 1 feels like censorship while option 2 – while it could easily constitute censorship – feels more like moderation to me.)
@aral I voted "delete" before I read this and would revise my opinion to "should be able to hide permanently from everyone except the author"
-
(Personally, option 1 feels like a violation to me – content belongs to the author not to the host and moderators should no more be deleting other people’s posts than they should be editing them – while option 2 – especially combined with a limit and/or suspension or the threat thereof – is well within the rights of the host regardless of whether I agree with the actual moderation decision itself. Option 1 feels like censorship while option 2 – while it could easily constitute censorship – feels more like moderation to me.)
@aral I think that if there only would be a single instance in a social media (not the fediverse design) the censorship thing would make a solid argument. But from my experience, people who post things in a well moderated instance that is required to be deleted (such as insults, offenses, or anything against the accepted rules when signing up) usually refuse to delete themselves and are more likely to keep the harassment, even stronger.
If someone is forced into an specific instance and (...)
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network ha condiviso questa discussione
-
@aral I think that if there only would be a single instance in a social media (not the fediverse design) the censorship thing would make a solid argument. But from my experience, people who post things in a well moderated instance that is required to be deleted (such as insults, offenses, or anything against the accepted rules when signing up) usually refuse to delete themselves and are more likely to keep the harassment, even stronger.
If someone is forced into an specific instance and (...)
@aral their posts are deleted without reason or warning that sounds like censorship. But in a place where you can choose multiple instances and you agree on terms on those instances, I see no reason to believe deleting posts is censorship. You can always repost or keep talking in any other instance.
-
@aral their posts are deleted without reason or warning that sounds like censorship. But in a place where you can choose multiple instances and you agree on terms on those instances, I see no reason to believe deleting posts is censorship. You can always repost or keep talking in any other instance.
@aral bonus: I like to think the fediverse like a radio. No one will force your voice out, at most you just don't fit in a channel.
-
Right, fediverse, let me know what you think. Long-form comments also welcome.
Mastodon instance moderators should…
@aral I don't exactly know what Mastodon moderators can do, but instance admins at least can ban people and delete accounts, and to me, deleting posts goes in the same ballpark. If you're up to the point where someone does something against the instance rules, in a way so severe you would want to delete the post, and won't change it themself, that person probably has nothing to do on your instance.
-
@aral bonus: I like to think the fediverse like a radio. No one will force your voice out, at most you just don't fit in a channel.
@alien The problem is that not all channels are created equal.
If mastodon.social blocks my instance of one, they prevent ~750,000 people from following me and seeing my posts.
If I block mastodon.social, I prevent ~750,000 people from following me and seeing my posts.
-
Right, fediverse, let me know what you think. Long-form comments also welcome.
Mastodon instance moderators should…
@aral Option 2 would not, for example, allow a moderator to remove CSAM.
There’s a need for moderators to have access to the nuclear option, but there also need to be a range of less drastic responses available, to allow building workable policies around that choice.
But they must have access to a “delete the post (other than forensic retention) and salt the earth” option.
-
@aral I voted "delete" before I read this and would revise my opinion to "should be able to hide permanently from everyone except the author"
-
@alien The problem is that not all channels are created equal.
If mastodon.social blocks my instance of one, they prevent ~750,000 people from following me and seeing my posts.
If I block mastodon.social, I prevent ~750,000 people from following me and seeing my posts.
@aral but you asked about posts, not instances, right? I assumed you were asking about deleting posts on moderated instances, if that's not the question I just didn't understood, sorry for that
Ciao! Sembra che tu sia interessato a questa conversazione, ma non hai ancora un account.
Stanco di dover scorrere gli stessi post a ogni visita? Quando registri un account, tornerai sempre esattamente dove eri rimasto e potrai scegliere di essere avvisato delle nuove risposte (tramite email o notifica push). Potrai anche salvare segnalibri e votare i post per mostrare il tuo apprezzamento agli altri membri della comunità.
Con il tuo contributo, questo post potrebbe essere ancora migliore 💗
Registrati Accedi