You're left wing and look about 12

November 26, 2015 5:47 AM

Journalist Owen Jones meets one of his twitter trolls. (SLYT) (NSFW swearing)
posted by fearfulsymmetry (20 comments total)

The video merely proves that all world problems can best be approached over a pint in the pub, where the inevitable solution lies awaiting discovery.

All other forms of communication and debate are inferior and only slow down the inevitable putting the world to right that should take place over a mild and lovely bitter.
posted by C.A.S. at 6:07 AM on November 26, 2015 [9 favorites]

I lasted only half the video before reaching my cringe limit, but good on Owen Jones for going through with the idea.

So the troll defends his ridiculous insults by saying he wants to make sure his more sincere objections don’t end up getting ignored. Seems wrong-headed. But I suppose if someone thinks like that, only the real threat of immediate censorship will get them to hold back.

If active moderation (like we enjoy here) is the only way to keep people to the standard of civility of a chat in the pub (ok, with a stranger and on camera), is Twitter salvageable? How do we get the same unspoken rules to apply to online discourse?
posted by ormon nekas at 6:32 AM on November 26, 2015

Or a nice glass of lemonade if you're a non-drinker.

I keep wanting to get up the gumption to do a podcast with people I've found who disagree with me over video game issues, but I don't yet want to dedicate that much time to it.
posted by TrishaLynn at 6:33 AM on November 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion. Yes, this has implications and yes it would have to be very well designed and likely modified on the fly. But it should be doable. I've sort of worked in online community for a while (20 years or so) and imho, yes, you need moderation, and there should be a way to put that tool into the hands of users.
posted by emmet at 6:36 AM on November 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

If you made a moderated social-media app designed to be "Twitter without the twits," what would be a good name for it?
posted by Brachinus at 6:44 AM on November 26, 2015

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion.

Any system that relies on voting and doesn't have human eyes on it ultimately making a call is pretty susceptible to being gamed. Racists/homophobes are just as capable of clicking an up/down vote as anyone else and its really a crapshoot whether or not they're going to just end up being more successful/committed at getting all their racist/homophobic friends to vote on any given post/comment/user.
posted by juv3nal at 6:54 AM on November 26, 2015 [10 favorites]

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion.

A crowd-sourced moderation system is exactly how unwanted voices get their power in the first place.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:05 AM on November 26, 2015 [12 favorites]

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion.

I checked out imgur a few times (who doesn't like cat pictures) and found that every time there was anything to do with a race that wasn't caucasian in the image, even just a black person holding a cat, there'd be racist comments. Sometimes just the n word. And they'd get a ton of upvotes. If you posted anything not in favour of racism, including asking what the hell is up with the racist comments and why are they getting upvotes, you'd get downvoted like crazy.

I don't look at imgur anymore.
posted by Dynex at 7:29 AM on November 26, 2015 [7 favorites]

If you made a moderated social-media app designed to be "Twitter without the twits," what would be a good name for it?

Ter
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:33 AM on November 26, 2015 [30 favorites]

DAMMIT Faint of Butt you beat me by a fraction of a second.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:34 AM on November 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

Not 12 but certainly under 18, bet he's always carded!
posted by sammyo at 7:43 AM on November 26, 2015

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion.

That's pretty much Reddit, and it only takes a quick perusal of any /r/whitepower /r/news post on BLM or any other racial issue to see how it works.

(Though I suppose you could say those aren't unwanted views if they're the most upvoted)
posted by dirigibleman at 7:54 AM on November 26, 2015 [2 favorites]

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion.

This is what reddit does. It doesn't work.

and there should be a way to put that tool into the hands of users.

This sentiment needs to be stomped out.

The Internet has conclusively proven that democracy does not and can not work. The only moderation model that has been proven to work is a benevolent dictatorship or oligarchy enforcing the rules no matter what the users want, like MetaFilter.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:56 AM on November 26, 2015 [13 favorites]

Once the "over a pint in a pub" solution includes obligatory youtube videos of the proceedings they will cease to work. See also, The Argument Culture.
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:58 AM on November 26, 2015

Or a nice glass of lemonade if you're a non-drinker.

Or a nice glass of bugger all if you're Owen Jones.
posted by jontyjago at 8:30 AM on November 26, 2015

we obviously need Peepl - it will weed out the trolls
posted by Golem XIV at 8:36 AM on November 26, 2015

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion. Yes, this has implications and yes it would have to be very well designed and likely modified on the fly. But it should be doable. I've sort of worked in online community for a while (20 years or so) and imho, yes, you need moderation, and there should be a way to put that tool into the hands of users.

Trolling a post about defusing trolls, nicely done. * golf clap *
posted by benzenedream at 9:03 AM on November 26, 2015

Once the "over a pint in a pub" solution includes obligatory youtube videos of the proceedings they will cease to work.

Obscure reference, that's the beauty of the pub. There are no proceedings, and for god's sake no Youtubing. And, being the pub, no noisy "argument culture" of US Cable.

There's just the sip of beer (or lemonade but I'd push for lime and soda) and the discussion. It will inevitably lead to agreement before the bell is rung, then everyone walks out into the cold air for a cigarette and home.
posted by C.A.S. at 9:42 AM on November 26, 2015

I would think a crowd-sourced moderation system, some variation of "vote up/vote down", would effectively remove unwanted voices from a discussion.

Or to quote Spider Jerusalem...

...And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation". They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting.

posted by howfar at 12:05 PM on November 26, 2015 [1 favorite]

The Internet has conclusively proven that democracy does not and can not work. The only moderation model that has been proven to work is a benevolent dictatorship or oligarchy enforcing the rules no matter what the users want, like MetaFilter.

Exactly! As long as you're the correct kind of MeFite.
posted by sfkiddo at 9:32 PM on November 26, 2015 [5 favorites]