First, congrats on Will Wheaton sharing your work. That must have been exciting!
I understand, I align, and I appreciate everything you spelled out above about the responsibility of community stewardship. I understand the economics of diverse communities, including the "eyeball"-generating mElon-heads that bring those platform-enabling Ad dollars. None of us enjoy being exposed to the underbelly of hate, bigotry, and misogyny... but I also don't want to live in a sanitized world. In drawing the line to avoid the "absolute must-not" behaviors, lately I'm aware that my time is in a bit of a vacuum chamber, spreading love and opportunity to a cast of others who are doing the same. We all speak pretty much the same language and the same stand on issues, and I wonder who we're helping. There's a balance to be had... in curating a responsible community and not just one that looks, speaks, and thinks like the founder. The world is increasingly silo'd -- and those silos sit behind screens. I'm not responsible for a formal community, but if I were... I'd hope to curate it in a way that welcomed and encouraged participation by all those silos... As long as the conversations stay curious and respectful (easier said than done, I realize), I would hope to serve and nurture as much policy / issue / life texture as possible through that channel. Exploring the differences of human thought and priorities is one of the great growth opportunities inside a collection of thoughtful minds, and I think the more diverse they are, the more we all learn to embrace (not just tolerate) our beautiful differences.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But I have to say that I do not equate or confuse diversity of perspective, respectful disagreement, and omnipatisanship (which BlogHer strived to represent, for example) with bigotry or hate and harassment. And we didn't find it *that* hard to tell the difference when moderating our community. I don't think any reasonable person would find it that hard either. There is a willfulness about the current social platforms thinking it's hard, I think. I can totally appreciate that *scale* is hard...like, how do you keep up? But maybe if they had built adequate community moderation expenses into their business model from the get-go, they would have set investor expectations differently and wouldn't feel like they would get slammed for introducing more successful moderation after the need for it was already out of control. (I think this is the business reason behind the abdication of responsibility that gets dressed up as a free speech/gray area conversation instead.)
Well said. It is an uncomfortable truth that we all know on some level, but it is healthy to see it spelled out so clearly. Profits are too often in bed with bad behavior. They do not have to be. It is good to be reminded that we should not accept that as a reasonable norm.
Thanks Paul. It seems like in general we've totally accepted it. And we swallow the "free speech" argument, and the "do you want the companies deciding what's appropriate" argument pretty quietly. Well, yes, I want these companies to tell me who they are, what they value, and then act accordingly. Not publish terms of service and guidelines that people regularly violate with impunity because moderation is hard.
Right now in Glendale we have a wannabe politician using the Public Comments portion of the School Board meetings to attack teachers who support lgbt kids. He has even ranted about teachers teaching CRT (clearly not knowing what it is), and social studies teachers teaching "socialism" (because apparently he thinks HS teachers should avoid that ism entirely). Even though it is against the rules to attack educators during public comments (the comments are supposed to be about issues with Board policy - not for attacking specific educators), he keeps getting admonishments but they continue to allow him to blatantly attack. There is no penalty even though he has been quite clear on camera that he will not follow their rules and will say exactly what he wants. Last year one of the teachers he attacked received death threats (the person was caught and arrested) but still the guy is allowed to spout hate and spread misinformation to rile up parents. Everyone is afraid to curtail his "free speech" rights. At a certain point, bad behavior needs to be called out and excised from public forums. It is incredibly frustrating to see folks tiptoeing around hate – and as you point out, it often comes down to personal profit - be it a fear of not being reelected, or a desire for greater financial returns.
Ugh, this is an even *more* nuanced situation because the first amendment is about government curtailing people's rights to free speech and a school board meeting is in fact a local governmental body. I've attended various local meetings and during public comments everyone is given the same 2 minutes (or whatever it is) and the local officials don't comment one way or the other on it, and in fact admonish the other attendees in the crowd if they make noise or boo or whatever. They may have policies about what kind of comments should be made, but I bet those policies are guidelines only, not rules that you can punished for breaking. Of course the person couldn't yell fire or incite to violence, but if they're defamatory I believe that's a civil issue and those being defamed would have the onus on them to sue. That's a rough situation :( And it's entirely a strategy the GOP has to disrupt local politics this way double-:(
Well it is going on as I type this. The police department is aware and concerned and has folks there to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The police union here supported this guy last election (he came in last) and I think enough attention has been drawn to his crazy behavior that I doubt they'll be supporting him next time, even if their voting members agree with his conservative stance his brand is becoming too toxic to align themselves with it. I think that is one good thing that will come out of this. Enough of us have been communicating our concerns to members of the force, as well as the Board, that more eyes are wide open as to his tactics. I sat with the teacher at the courthouse - the one who had received the death threats last year – while we waited for the perpetrator to come in for sentencing (never showed that morning) and she is such a lovely person with a big heart for teaching and a love for her students – seeing teachers attacked for simply doing their job – inline with school board policy, is one of the few things that really gets under my skin. Hopefully the Board is handling it better this go around.
First, congrats on Will Wheaton sharing your work. That must have been exciting!
I understand, I align, and I appreciate everything you spelled out above about the responsibility of community stewardship. I understand the economics of diverse communities, including the "eyeball"-generating mElon-heads that bring those platform-enabling Ad dollars. None of us enjoy being exposed to the underbelly of hate, bigotry, and misogyny... but I also don't want to live in a sanitized world. In drawing the line to avoid the "absolute must-not" behaviors, lately I'm aware that my time is in a bit of a vacuum chamber, spreading love and opportunity to a cast of others who are doing the same. We all speak pretty much the same language and the same stand on issues, and I wonder who we're helping. There's a balance to be had... in curating a responsible community and not just one that looks, speaks, and thinks like the founder. The world is increasingly silo'd -- and those silos sit behind screens. I'm not responsible for a formal community, but if I were... I'd hope to curate it in a way that welcomed and encouraged participation by all those silos... As long as the conversations stay curious and respectful (easier said than done, I realize), I would hope to serve and nurture as much policy / issue / life texture as possible through that channel. Exploring the differences of human thought and priorities is one of the great growth opportunities inside a collection of thoughtful minds, and I think the more diverse they are, the more we all learn to embrace (not just tolerate) our beautiful differences.
I don't disagree with anything you said. But I have to say that I do not equate or confuse diversity of perspective, respectful disagreement, and omnipatisanship (which BlogHer strived to represent, for example) with bigotry or hate and harassment. And we didn't find it *that* hard to tell the difference when moderating our community. I don't think any reasonable person would find it that hard either. There is a willfulness about the current social platforms thinking it's hard, I think. I can totally appreciate that *scale* is hard...like, how do you keep up? But maybe if they had built adequate community moderation expenses into their business model from the get-go, they would have set investor expectations differently and wouldn't feel like they would get slammed for introducing more successful moderation after the need for it was already out of control. (I think this is the business reason behind the abdication of responsibility that gets dressed up as a free speech/gray area conversation instead.)
Well said. It is an uncomfortable truth that we all know on some level, but it is healthy to see it spelled out so clearly. Profits are too often in bed with bad behavior. They do not have to be. It is good to be reminded that we should not accept that as a reasonable norm.
Thanks Paul. It seems like in general we've totally accepted it. And we swallow the "free speech" argument, and the "do you want the companies deciding what's appropriate" argument pretty quietly. Well, yes, I want these companies to tell me who they are, what they value, and then act accordingly. Not publish terms of service and guidelines that people regularly violate with impunity because moderation is hard.
Right now in Glendale we have a wannabe politician using the Public Comments portion of the School Board meetings to attack teachers who support lgbt kids. He has even ranted about teachers teaching CRT (clearly not knowing what it is), and social studies teachers teaching "socialism" (because apparently he thinks HS teachers should avoid that ism entirely). Even though it is against the rules to attack educators during public comments (the comments are supposed to be about issues with Board policy - not for attacking specific educators), he keeps getting admonishments but they continue to allow him to blatantly attack. There is no penalty even though he has been quite clear on camera that he will not follow their rules and will say exactly what he wants. Last year one of the teachers he attacked received death threats (the person was caught and arrested) but still the guy is allowed to spout hate and spread misinformation to rile up parents. Everyone is afraid to curtail his "free speech" rights. At a certain point, bad behavior needs to be called out and excised from public forums. It is incredibly frustrating to see folks tiptoeing around hate – and as you point out, it often comes down to personal profit - be it a fear of not being reelected, or a desire for greater financial returns.
Ugh, this is an even *more* nuanced situation because the first amendment is about government curtailing people's rights to free speech and a school board meeting is in fact a local governmental body. I've attended various local meetings and during public comments everyone is given the same 2 minutes (or whatever it is) and the local officials don't comment one way or the other on it, and in fact admonish the other attendees in the crowd if they make noise or boo or whatever. They may have policies about what kind of comments should be made, but I bet those policies are guidelines only, not rules that you can punished for breaking. Of course the person couldn't yell fire or incite to violence, but if they're defamatory I believe that's a civil issue and those being defamed would have the onus on them to sue. That's a rough situation :( And it's entirely a strategy the GOP has to disrupt local politics this way double-:(
Well it is going on as I type this. The police department is aware and concerned and has folks there to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. The police union here supported this guy last election (he came in last) and I think enough attention has been drawn to his crazy behavior that I doubt they'll be supporting him next time, even if their voting members agree with his conservative stance his brand is becoming too toxic to align themselves with it. I think that is one good thing that will come out of this. Enough of us have been communicating our concerns to members of the force, as well as the Board, that more eyes are wide open as to his tactics. I sat with the teacher at the courthouse - the one who had received the death threats last year – while we waited for the perpetrator to come in for sentencing (never showed that morning) and she is such a lovely person with a big heart for teaching and a love for her students – seeing teachers attacked for simply doing their job – inline with school board policy, is one of the few things that really gets under my skin. Hopefully the Board is handling it better this go around.
Yes, fingers crossed. But it's such a shame :(
Elisa, thanks for your insights and integrity. I love to read you.
Thank you so much Brenda. I'm sure you're considering many of these issues as you build The Village!