I think that while the Code of Conduct will take more time and effort, a simple Federation Policy might improve the Federated Timeline and the overall social.coop experience.
- An instance will be silenced if it meets any of the following criteria:
- Explicitly allows something forbidden by Social.coop's Code of Conduct
- The instance has as one of its goals shitposting or the instance has no moderation policy.
The following are examples of any of the instances that would be silenced:
- sealion.club (shitposting)
- shitposter.club (shitposting)
- toot.love (no moderation)
Poll Created Mon 20 Aug 2018 9:42PM
Give the standing jury power to mute an instance dedicated to shitposting, without moderation(freespeech tm) or with CoCs incompatible with our drafts. Closed Mon 27 Aug 2018 9:02PM
Jury will be able to decide on a case by case basis while a Federation Policy and CoC are enacted.
|Results||Option||% of points||Voters|
||Agree||72.7%||16||RB GSF G|
22 of 36 people have voted (61%)
Mon 20 Aug 2018 9:53PM
I don't support this as worded. I don't like the idea of silencing instances just because they don't themselves have effectively matching CoCs. Dedication to "shitposting" (I assume "shitposhing" was a typo) seems justified for silence though.
Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:01PM
A higher bar should be set for silencing whole instances than for individuals. This vote should be understood as a temporary vote of confidence to resolve currently outstanding issues meanwhile the appropriate decisionmaking process takes place.
Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:06PM
I agree with @h and Edward L Platt. Also, it seems better to have an identified group be making these decisions. The cases need to be publicized on social.coop: "XYZ instance was silenced on Aug 23rd 2018 because..."
Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:19PM
Changed from agree: on reflection, I don't think the "standing jury" (name to be changed) is ready to do this yet, and a better name might help people see it more clearly.
Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:52PM
Excepting that there should be a clear policy on process and documentation of the instances that are silenced and a way for a SC member to petition for a an unblocking if they felt there was cause.
Mon 20 Aug 2018 11:23PM
I think this is an appropriate job for the group known as the standing jury. However, I think strong evidence of harmful CoC-violating content or encouragement of it should be required. Should we reach out to admins before silencing?
Gil Scott Fitzgerald
Mon 20 Aug 2018 11:58PM
I'm not sure if it's fair for me to the standing jury more power as I'm a member of that group as well, but better to ask forgiveness than permission. If anyone disagrees with me voting I'll abstain, no hard feelings. :)
Tue 21 Aug 2018 12:38AM
I think the proposal would be stronger w/o the CoC drafts element, as there's some contradictory stuff between the drafts, but I do support empowering the standing jury to make mute calls w/o having to run every mute past the full Working Group.
Wed 22 Aug 2018 7:10AM
This sounds like an efficient approach. As others have mentioned, I think it is important that there is transparency in the process and that if an instance it silenced, this should be communicated to all members, ideally on Social.Coop itself.
Mon 27 Aug 2018 12:05AM
I'm still abstaining, but would like to elaborate other aspects of my reason. To me, the question of which instances are muted should depend on the preferences of the user body as a whole. If all users have come to reasonable consensus on a clear enough policy, then fine for the referral team / communication quality team to mute an instance that clearly falls within the agreed policy. Otherwise, not clear.
Mon 27 Aug 2018 11:29AM
I agree we should give the standing jury (or whatever we call it) "power to mute an instance" as a matter of expediency. However, it should have guidelines. I'd not agree that a stated dedication to "shitposting" is worthy of muting a whole instance, since it can just mean irreverence, frivolity, or bad language (which we have on social.coop). Nor should a "incompatibility" in CoC, as that's also too vague and broad. "Freespeech" is not "no moderation" nor is it necessarily offensive or libel.
Mon 27 Aug 2018 4:32PM
I agree with @h and Edward L Platt. Also, it seems better to have an identified group be making these decisions. The cases need to be publicized on social.coop: "XYZ instance was silenced on Aug 23rd 2018 because..." -- On reflection, I am concerned about the process here and worried that this temporary solution might drift into permanency... Many people voiced important concerns and objections that should be explicitly taken into account before passing something like this.
Mon 27 Aug 2018 4:59PM
OK I've moved to disagreeing here. To me, the question of which instances are muted should depend on the preferences of the user body as a whole. If all users have come to reasonable consensus on a clear enough policy, then fine for the referral team / communication quality team to mute an instance that clearly falls within the agreed policy. Otherwise, not clear. I disagree because we shouldn't assume a policy and then implement it immediately like this.