Loomio
Thu 27 Apr 2023 8:53PM

Proposal for Change to Code of Conduct

JC juniper cameryn Public Seen by 215

Hello all!

I shared a concern in here about specificity of language and potential for abuse several months ago. You can read that thread here: https://www.loomio.com/d/sdUcLBWD/specificity-of-language-regarding-content-warnings

I'm bringing this back up because today I was notified that a post of mine was reported from another instance and was determined to not have violated the code of conduct. However it brought back up for me that this particular clause could easily be abused without clear and specific guidelines around it, and that as our instance grows that specificity becomes even more important.

The things I write about can by nature be distressing. It is part of what my audience values my writing for- it is pushing against popular wellness narratives and attempting to help people grow and be more mature and healthy in the way they relate to themselves and each other. I have been targeted for harassment in the past because of the things I write (and being honest I suspect the person who reported me may have been adjacent to those people).

This matters a lot to me because while I fully agree with any code of conduct that ensures we aren't posting things that are hateful or abusive, it is the nature of life and growth that we may find things that push us to think in ways we're not comfortable with "distressing." We also have a plethora of tools on the platform from blocking, muting, and hiding certain terms if people don't wish to see it. This is a rule that begs a lot of questions too about news and content that is political or challenging in nature. The climate crisis is one example that comes to mind.

Here is the proposal I am submitting:

I propose that we remove "content that is likely to be distressing or hurtful to others" under what must be nested under a CW from Social.Coop Member Code of Conduct v3.1 section 5 https://wiki.social.coop/docs/Code-of-conduct.html

I am submitting this proposal under the assumption that we can have some productive conversation if there is any disagreement or other members think doing so would require us to flesh out boundaries a bit more clearly.

JC

Poll Created Thu 27 Apr 2023 8:54PM

CWs for "Distressing Content" Closed Sun 30 Apr 2023 7:51PM

Outcome
by juniper cameryn Sun 30 Apr 2023 7:52PM

Strong opposition, not developed enough.

Proposal:

I propose that we remove "content that is likely to be distressing or hurtful to others" under what must be nested under a CW from Social.Coop Member Code of Conduct v3.1 section 5 https://wiki.social.coop/docs/Code-of-conduct.html

I am submitting this proposal under the assumption that we can have some productive conversation if there is any disagreement or other members think doing so would require us to flesh out boundaries a bit more clearly.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 0.0% 0  
Abstain 7.4% 2 AS A
Disagree 92.6% 25 AW MN DB BS AR I EC D BV ZS SW MB TR KL DT SJ JN RP L FM
Undecided 0% 323 DS KF ST DM JD CZ BH LF WO JC JNM F J BM NS SH KT C ZS DH

27 of 350 people have participated (7%)

AR

Alex Rodriguez
Disagree
Thu 27 Apr 2023 8:54PM

I don't think it makes sense to remove this clause without replacing it with something clearer about the use of CWs

SS

Sven Shipton
Disagree
Thu 27 Apr 2023 8:54PM

I don't think it should be removed without a proposal for replacement. But it could be amended to read something like "content that is reasonably likely to be distressing or hurtful to a significant number of people"

It ups the boundary a little bit by excluding triggers which may be uncommon and more difficult to anticipate. Then if you feel that something is borderline, cover it with a CW for safety anyway.

JC

juniper cameryn Thu 27 Apr 2023 9:08PM

@Sven Shipton and @Alex Rodriguez This context is in the original thread but there is already a clause that says "includes discussions or depictions of violence, sexually explicit material, and/or common PT triggers"

Does that not cover this?

SM

Scott McGerik Thu 27 Apr 2023 9:17PM

What is a "PT trigger"? That needs to be defined. Maybe it is defined elsewhere but I didn't find it while quickly scanning the Code of Conduct.

JC

juniper cameryn Thu 27 Apr 2023 9:21PM

@Scott McGerik I'm not sure but I agree!

SM

Scott McGerik Thu 27 Apr 2023 9:30PM

@juniper cameryn I suspect it means Post Trauma trigger. Due to my life experiences, when I see PT, I read it as Physical Therapy but that doesn't make sense to me in the context of context warnings.

FM

Fenn Martyn
Disagree
Thu 27 Apr 2023 8:54PM

I agree with the points you made, and I believe that the definition of "distressing content" is poorly defined and up for too much interpretation.

I believe we should have a separate "Content Policy" that explicitly states the spirit of the rules (for guidance when a post does not match the rules as written but may still be objectionable) as well as provides specific examples for clarity.

However, we should have a replacement before removing the current policy. Hence, my dissent.

DB

Doug Belshaw
Disagree
Thu 27 Apr 2023 8:54PM

Disagreeing again for the same reasons as last time. There may be edge cases, but any Code of Conduct worth having needs to identify content that may be distressing or hurtful to others.

A CW is not some kind of censorship, but rather a courtesy to other users. I see no reason to change the policy other than a hypothetical situation.

(In addition, it's unhelpful to allow anyone on this instance, at any time, to propose changes to policies by triggering a vote which notifies every other member)

JC

juniper cameryn Thu 27 Apr 2023 9:29PM

@Doug Belshaw If I am a democratic member of our organization, as long as I am not being repeatedly or intentionally disruptive, I have a right to make proposals that other members can vote and give feedback on! I'm not looking for people to immediately accept my proposal as is, I'm looking for discussion that can help flesh out and develop these concerns.

Load More