Framework for Moderation
emi do PublicSeen by 257It’s been exciting to see many new tooters on social.coop and though each of our timelines may look a little different, we are looking for ways to ensure that the social.coop corner of the fediverse continues to reflect our values and ethos for being a cooperative and collaborative space. The CWG Ops team has been hard at work at our moderation duties through this large growth phase and we have been grappling with some moderation questions.
We would like to add clarification to encouraged and discouraged behaviours outlined in our CoC and Reporting Guidelines.
In an effort to encourage and model positive and constructive modes of discourse that demonstrate a mode of online communication that can prove counter to the norms on other platforms,
we’d like to introduce nuance to moderation based on the guidelines outlined on this blog: https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/discourse.html
In this thread we will discuss different moderation challenges and based on those discussions, will propose amendments to the CoC for approval by the membership.
as I understand it, the originating point for the current discussion was this post: https://www.loomio.com/d/zT7jiGxI/moderation-of-fake-news
Thank you! I could have asked more bluntly, but I asked several times in different contexts about what I was missing to understand what happened. This is the first time in this long thread that I've seen any link to that topic, and I never saw it before. I wonder how much this whole "framework" topic was confusing because the context wasn't clear at the top of it.
Quick note to everyone about some contention and misunderstandings that have come up here. Thank you to those who worked to find resolution and to recognize in the end the good-faith of one another and to own our reactivity (which is normal and not the same as bad-faith).
Please note that this is why I and others wrote https://wiki-dev.social.coop/Conflict_resolution_guide the way we did. The guide emphasizes using direct-messages and getting facilitation assistance. The more we can avoid public back-and-forth and public accusations of bad faith or other uncharitable interpretations, the more we can keep focused on topics at hand. When we're upset, it's too easy to imagine bad-faith in others, and replying to others while we're upset consistently goes worse than if we own our feelings and follow best-practices for healthy communication.
Please use the conflict-resolution guide, and if you don't like something about it, help us improve it. (And yes, I need to eat my projections and model this myself, I'm still working on the same challenges — cooperation can be hard, and yet it's worth the work in the end).
I think the conflict resolution process is the best tool in our toolbox, but it is largely unused. When it has been used, it has been really helpful, both to ops team members and to members in a conflict. We should definitely hold some intro sessions on it for new and existing members.
It's obvious I have some opinions on disinformation. I've tried not to post too much today so I could get an idea of what people thought. Some people asked questions that I'd like to address.
Why did I mention intent? It's in the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
I don't think this means the poster always knowingly spreads a lie, but the information itself isn't spontaneous, it's created by someone to deceive. It's a weapon.
@adamgreenfield asked: And who’s to say what an “unreliable or unknown” source is?
Do we really have to talk about Fox being an unreliable source?
As for unknown sources, the fact is, anyone, anywhere in the world, can create a website, or a youtube channel, or a facebook group, and post pretty much anything there, within certain limits. I could make a page arguing that the Moon is made of green cheese. There's also state actors:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
@lynnfoster said: 2) It requires way too much original research, and even expertise, to discover actual facts these days.
I don't think this is true. We don't have to be astrophysicists to believe the Earth is round, or become doctors to trust in a vaccine. Sites like nasa.gov or cdc.gov are credible and can answer questions quickly. People who deny this are either drinking the Kool Aid, or pouring it.
>[from @Michael Potter ] Sites like nasa.gov or cdc.gov are credible and can answer questions quickly. People who deny this are either drinking the Kool Aid, or pouring it.
I wish that were true. I used to trust the CDC, now no longer do, which I'm sad about. For example, they were back and forth on masks, and weren't clear on mask quality. Another one, they didn't recognize that covid is spread by aerosols for a long time after the science was clear (a year?), and still don't emphasize it properly so that people understand the importance of ventilation. We won't ever know how many lives that cost. I've read a lot of original studies to figure out my own covid response, and the CDC was frequently wrong or behind. And was several times criticised strongly by people like University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm (who has been on the president's advisory group) for being wrong, it's not just unqualified people like me. I've also read about some of the financial conflicts of interest involved, which exist, whether or not people acted on them. There's so much more, this is the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. I'm not personally anti-vax. But think a respectful discussion is good, in fact critical. The above, and other comments recommending trusting mainstream media for our disinformation decisions, is exactly the reason.
Somewhat unexpectedly chiming in to support Lynn’s comments here. Even the most trustworthy of state institutions can be compromised or subverted, and their credibility in the past does not guarantee their reliability in inimical hands. This is one reason why I dislike policies that specify some sources as prima facie credible.
I support moderators removing disinformation but think we should word the addition to the CoC broadly, to give them latitude. If there are issues with them interpreting this too aggressively or members feeling like their speech has been chilled, we could then revisit. "Disinformation, meaning false information which is intended to mislead" seems good enough. That said, I very much defer to what the moderation team itself thinks would be helpful. Have any moderators weighed in?
The discussion got a bit overwhelming and noisy now, a lot of opinions, not a lot of discussion, and hard to get perspective I think. It feels to me like a crowded room of people shouting over each other.
I do notice by looking in the sidebar on the right that the middle proposal is almost all green, and the other two are majority red, so maybe the middle green proposal is good enough to go forward with.
That emphasised that the main issue wasn't about trying to decide what is or isn't misinformation (spicy topic), but focusing on co-operating with our lovely moderator team (people seem broadly to approve of this).
To my mind, it would be nice to know if the moderator team is sufficiently supported to do their work, maybe they need more people, money, guidance? Or maybe there are things outside of the scope that they can handle?
I personally, would be happy to leave this one to the moderator team (aka the CWG)...
As it's grown, increasingly I have the sense of social.coop not so much as a coherent community, but a co-operative service provider of a mastodon instance. It feels too big to have a real discussion (which to me is mostly about listening, and less about talking). I don't know who you all are, and I don't really have a way to find out.
The working groups, on the other hand, I think can achieve that coherence... a much smaller set of people with some longer term bond and committent.. it's that I put my faith in more than the public town square style we have here.
I have the sense now of my comment here being written on a piece of the paper, which I'll now launch into the wind, to go where it goes :)
@lynnfoster I got feedback that my post was snarky, and on re-reading, I agree and I apologize. To rephrase non-snarkily.
I'm not a fan of blind trust in any authority, and the CDC isn't a monolithic authority, but part of a broader scientific and medical consensus. It's that consensus that I generally trust.
Your paragraph on the CDC seemed like a challenge to "do my own research," the results of which I can guarantee no one on this thread wants to hear. Also, I don't feel the need to refute any of that in order to trust in science.
I don’t believe that last characterization (“something we heard on the internet”) is at all fair to any of us in this conversation, Michael. While I am unyieldingly pro-vaccination, and in general an advocate of robust public health measures, the issues at the CDC are a matter of public record.
Based upon the following from Ana:
"Quite a few other Fedi instances have no problem dealing with misinformation without needing to have a novel-length Loomio discussion or a precise policy outlining every possible edge case."
I have the feeling that we could handle mis/dis-information by letting the CWG do its work, with appropriate levels of transparency. If necessary, we could have a Loomio diiscussion.
While we do need some form of moderation for disinformation, as people pissing in the fountain of truth is never a good thing, this needs re-wording.
Yes, the intent may not be to censor religion, astrology or spirituality, but the wording doesn't mention those, or say that they are okay.
As for conspiracy theories, the Snowden revelations about the NSA surveilling everything on the internet, was a conspiracy theory until Snowden proved that it was real...
Abstaining until someone from the moderation team weighs in, as I'd like to defer to any perspective any of them have to offer since they are closer to the work of actually enforcing any policy like this.
My read is that this thread has about burnt itself out (and yes, that we should defer to CWG), but for me it's raised some questions about the process we use for developing Loomio proposals, and I started a thread about my questions here: https://www.loomio.com/d/vzhQxDHA/how-we-use-proposals
(Please also let me know if I've done anything incorrectly in either the technical or social aspects of setting up and making people aware of a Loomio thread for the group.)
I'm not sure if I've helped or hindered the CWG with this proposal, but my proposal hasn't demonstrated broad approval as it is. We could either refine the language, or I could hit the button to close early.
I've opposed using the word "harmful" because I'm sure a clearly authoritarian regime, like Iran's leadership, could use such a broad definition to justify their terrible actions against protestors. Also the other proposal suggesting harmful as the key word isn't doing well.
Billy's comments touch on what I had in mind with the initial language. Some conspiracy theories are true, which is why I said "debunked," to make a distinction for things that have not failed fact checks. Snowden was not debunked because, unlike many conspiracy theorists, he provided copies of the proof to respected journalists.
Religion and spirituality are not the sort of information that can be effectively fact-checked and are outside of the purview of science. I'm not sure of the best way to describe information that we definitely don't want to censor.
Hi Michael I'd like to ask you to reconsider your comment drawing a comparison between the 5 individuals and members of our community who serve as the elected CWG and the government of Iran.
I really didn't intend to compare the CWG to Iran, and I've edited to clarify that.
I abstain, because the language is admittedly not clear in the proposal. I am torn between the need to be clear and legal tendencies to say as little as possible. It is a good code of conduct, but needs more discussion and wordsmithing perhaps.
I agree with this but we definitely need a clear process including appeals to both keep CWG from having to constantly parse murky space as well as give ppl trust in the process ❤️❤️
Agree.
I support a covenant of cooperating with the CWG.
While I generally think it's appropriate for moderators to try to stop the spread of disinformation, I'm concerned that the language in this proposal implies a bias towards formal authority, in "references to unreliable or unknown sources".
Intent is typically a very difficult standard to uphold, since you would need corroborating evidence that a person had that intent. In a court system where it's possible to legally subpoena someone's private communications, it's sometimes possible to establish intent in cases like defamation. But the co-op presumably shouldn't have that power. At the same time, we all have mistakenly published inaccurate information at some point.
As I said about the first proposal about "harmful" stuff:
I'd like to see something positive rather than a prohibition. An obligation to respect the common culture of the site and promote cooperativist principles.
Generally okay with this, but I don't like the "unreliable or unknown sources" bit. A random civilian posting an eye witness account of an ongoing event would be an unknown source. A satirical publication would be an (intentionally) unreliable source.
I suggest dropping this clause altogether, leaving us with something like: "Disinformation, meaning false information which is intended to mislead, such as demonstrably false claims and debunked conspiracy theories." That should suffice, I think.
Agree with the proposal, but also agree with some that potential for harm should be added in to be a bit more specific.
this kind of disinformation has already begun to divide communities and is a serious threat to democracy, I therefore agree that such safeguards against disinformation should be written into the CoC.
I am overwhelmed by the sheer volume of proposals. What might it be like if if we allow our moderation working group to use their expertise to define and enact policy, rather than attempt to coalesce everyone into a cohesive stance? It seems unreasonable to require our Code of Conduct to be universally debated, and I would prefer if we all the Moderators (who have the experience and expertise) to engage in advice-seeking + deciding rather than whole-group voting. Rule of two feet and all that.
This is too broad and vague, especially "references to unreliable or unknown sources"
A number of people really do not like the mention of specific case types. What about the following edit:
CUT OUT: This includes demonstrably false claims, debunked conspiracy theories, or references to unreliable or unknown sources.
This would leave the final language as follows. I added a blurb on intent.
I propose that we add the following bullet point under Section 5 of the CoC, where it says "I will not post, threaten to post, nor share from this instance or external sources:"
Disinformation, meaning false information which is intended to mislead. This may not reflect the intent of the poster.
Thank you to everyone who has put so much time, thought and energy to forwarding this discussion. It has been interesting and challenging to navigate the increase in diversity and volume of moderation issues that the Ops Team has been handling.
Many members of the Ops Team have not been actively participating in this discussion but we are all incredibly grateful to have been able to take a back seat and to see such respectful and thoughtful debate happening. Though it might be frustrating, I think these types of processes in which we all are able to speak to our various lived experiences is rare. We will not always agree with one another but I love that we are all striving to live with one another.
I've just announced the passed proposal on the instance. @Aaron Wolf, please go ahead and amend the Code of Conduct on the wiki!
updated at https://wiki-dev.social.coop/Code_of_conduct so it will be merged whenever that dev version of wiki gets linked in better.
Thanks Ana, that's a good point. Do you have any specific information about Fedi instances you think handle this well? We could avoid reinventing the wheel by just looking at the best examples already out there.
Please, anyone, share links to examples of mis/disinformation policies we could consider drawing from, especially if they are already shown to be effective and in use in the Fediverse so we can observe them in practice.