Online Community Is Hard
February 13, 2012 11:05 AM Subscribe
James Bennett (developer for Mozilla, Django) on why moderating an online community is so difficult to get right. See previous post on the Blue for background on events at reddit.
This post was deleted for the following reason: The previous post is just from yesterday evening, maybe add this to that thread? -- cortex
Yeah, screw that. I'm not interested in reddit as long as users can create areas, apparently unmoderated, with themes like that.
posted by iotic at 11:34 AM on February 13, 2012
posted by iotic at 11:34 AM on February 13, 2012
I think there is potentially a solution, which is: don't try to be everything to everybody and remain small enough that you can moderate with humans, like Metafilter is able to do.
Other internet forums I visit that are interesting are very topic-specific, like a woodworking forum, and ruthlessly prune comments and threads which are not on-topic. This works. They also generally don't allow politics or sex, which also works.
It's when you have the dream of a giant site where anyone can talk about anything that it all falls apart quickly.
posted by maxwelton at 11:41 AM on February 13, 2012
Other internet forums I visit that are interesting are very topic-specific, like a woodworking forum, and ruthlessly prune comments and threads which are not on-topic. This works. They also generally don't allow politics or sex, which also works.
It's when you have the dream of a giant site where anyone can talk about anything that it all falls apart quickly.
posted by maxwelton at 11:41 AM on February 13, 2012
Yeah, screw that. I'm not interested in reddit as long as users can create areas, apparently unmoderated, with themes like that.
Dude. You're on the internet. You're on the internet right now.
posted by mhoye at 11:42 AM on February 13, 2012 [4 favorites]
Dude. You're on the internet. You're on the internet right now.
posted by mhoye at 11:42 AM on February 13, 2012 [4 favorites]
The solution that we currently have in a great many sites places the burden of choice on the shoulders of the user.
We have admins (who clean through entire sites) or mods (who patrol the dark corridors of specific sub-sites) and who periodically drop the hammer or cleanse with fire what they find to be bad for the site and its inhabitants.
If people don't like the way the admins/mods purge topics, they can move on and/or make their own topical discussion site. If people do like the way admins/mods are doing things then they should stay, encourage and help where they can, and generally enjoy the place the admins/mods have made for them.
I don't think its a great idea, this attempt to craft a Unified Theory of Acceptable Internet Subject Matter, because it puts the burden of 'making the right decisions' on the admins/mods. The admins/mods already make good enough decisions, they make decisions that they are comfortable with which is damn well good enough given that its... their site to run. If people aren't comfortable with whats going on they ought to skedaddle over to another site which makes decisions more in line with what they believe to be ethical/appropriate.
Its never going to be perfect, we will always end up making a bad call somewhere. In the meantime; trolls get rolled, pedos get hosed, and the worst of the worst is sanctioned when and where its possible.
Those places that are run by skeevy mods with appetites for the illegal... will be raided by the FBI eventually. By all means, publicize what they do and hammer their mods and admins, but don't expect to get your way. Its their site, the most you can hope for is change begot from extreme external pressure (or the threat thereof) from law enforcement.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:46 AM on February 13, 2012
We have admins (who clean through entire sites) or mods (who patrol the dark corridors of specific sub-sites) and who periodically drop the hammer or cleanse with fire what they find to be bad for the site and its inhabitants.
If people don't like the way the admins/mods purge topics, they can move on and/or make their own topical discussion site. If people do like the way admins/mods are doing things then they should stay, encourage and help where they can, and generally enjoy the place the admins/mods have made for them.
I don't think its a great idea, this attempt to craft a Unified Theory of Acceptable Internet Subject Matter, because it puts the burden of 'making the right decisions' on the admins/mods. The admins/mods already make good enough decisions, they make decisions that they are comfortable with which is damn well good enough given that its... their site to run. If people aren't comfortable with whats going on they ought to skedaddle over to another site which makes decisions more in line with what they believe to be ethical/appropriate.
Its never going to be perfect, we will always end up making a bad call somewhere. In the meantime; trolls get rolled, pedos get hosed, and the worst of the worst is sanctioned when and where its possible.
Those places that are run by skeevy mods with appetites for the illegal... will be raided by the FBI eventually. By all means, publicize what they do and hammer their mods and admins, but don't expect to get your way. Its their site, the most you can hope for is change begot from extreme external pressure (or the threat thereof) from law enforcement.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:46 AM on February 13, 2012
Has Metafilter ever actually come under sustained attack, or has the $5 charge been enough to ward off attacks given that there are more lucrative targets around?
posted by fragmede at 11:50 AM on February 13, 2012
posted by fragmede at 11:50 AM on February 13, 2012
« Older "I thought others might appreciate these tidbits... | The seedy underbelly of the internet. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I don't understand what's complex about saying "No, we're not allowing photos in a category titled jailbait".
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:16 AM on February 13, 2012