Study on Online Community Moderation finds results

.

The study isn't advocating any type of ideology.

It is advocating transparency about the rules - whatever those community rules are - rather than retaliating and shaming for airing unpopular thoughts and beliefs.

Regardless of your beliefs, you should treat others with a modicum of dignity and give them credit for the capacity to change their behaviour.

And if someone doesn't "get it" and continues breaking the rules as understood by the community, then by all means close ranks and ask them to take their business elsewhere. But don't act like you're doing them a favour by putting a red flag under their name or other ways of public punishment. This just encourages the public-execution gawkers, and scares other people from posting honestly.

That's really all it is. It's not even about private ownership or first amendment or any of that. It's about relating to other people in a way that gives them full power of choice over their words and actions (including consequences!) vs jerking them about by invisible puppet strings.

"

IzaroPetMTX wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

educational

lol, WHO THE F ARE THEY TO Fcckn LECTURE ME ABOUT HOW TO BEHAVE?

I prefer a more honest and direct approach, like "we delete your messages because you're an asshole and we don't like you," I would respect that and have nothing against it. But trying with an ""educational approach""" to teach me how to behave properly based on their personal moral beliefs is FCK OFF YOU'RE NOT MY MOTHER, OKAY?

Mind your own business and watch your fkcin forum and don't try to """""'educate""""""" other people, okay?

Peace,

-Boem-

WOW WOW EASY NOW, EDGELORD

Peace,

-Boem-

"

elesham4ever wrote:

...

I don't think we actually disagree on the underlined. I'm in agreement that the concept of shutting up dissent is as old as time, but as for reasons why it's coming back as the dominant way of resolving disagreement, I don't agree that it's just and only demographics.

Don't think we can talk any more about it here, unfortunately. It should be obvious and non-controversial to point out that something has changed, though, even in our own lifetime.

---

"

crunkatog wrote:

Regardless of your beliefs, you should treat others with a modicum of dignity and give them credit for the capacity to change their behaviour.

I think this is pretty much it. Also Boem's "trust v. fear model" is a matching comment. Treating people as soulless automata that need to be whipped into shape is the path of sorrow.

"

crunkatog wrote:

It's not even about private ownership or first amendment or any of that. It's about relating to other people in a way that gives them full power of choice over their words and actions (including consequences!) vs jerking them about by invisible puppet strings.

I mean... this is exactly what the first amendment is about. Recognizing that the choice of words and the suffering of consequences is a natural right that everyone has, and attempts to suppress it are immoral.

Criticism is discouraged.. hmmmm

"I'm personally offended by this, therefore I will edit or just remove it"

I can imagine most of the moderation is by personal judgement unless they think that the "company" they work for is in "danger" somehow then I believe they act to enforce that rule.

I've been insulted a bunch of times by other users the few times I reported them they never removed the posts.. sometimes moderation is funny in these forums.