Don't read the comments
September 21, 2016 11:39 AM   Subscribe

"Comments on Times stories are moderated by a team of 14 people known as the community desk. Together, they review around 11,000 comments each day for the approximately 10 percent of Times articles that are open to reader comment. To help illustrate how our moderation works and how a new system might help, we have arranged for you to take a Times moderation test."
posted by roomthreeseventeen (86 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite
 
My results: You moderated 5 out of 5 comments as the Community desk would have, and it took you 85 seconds. Moderating the 11,000 comments posted to nytimes.com each day would take you 51.9 hours.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:42 AM on September 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


well shit, I got 1/5 .. Very different ideas of what promotes real discourse, that's for sure..
posted by k5.user at 11:44 AM on September 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


We would have rejected this comment. It is effectively an insult to an entire class of people, and recommends presumably violent actions against them.

3 / 5, but I did think that rejecting the comments about “women and their monogamy obsession” and “This is not marriage. This is sodomy.” fell into the same hole.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:46 AM on September 21, 2016 [37 favorites]


The commenter is making an argument against gay marriage that reflects common language used in the public sphere.

So, basically, if the general public is awful enough about a subject, it's okay.
posted by Sequence at 11:47 AM on September 21, 2016 [40 favorites]


I missed seeing the word "Rethuglicans." Hopefully the actual moderators have some filters to highlight common insults.
posted by larrybob at 11:48 AM on September 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


4/5. "Missed" the last one, but I think gender essentialism is both a bad opinion to have and bad science.
posted by Etrigan at 11:48 AM on September 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


5/5 but I would have graded a couple of them harder if they said "you are a Metafilter mod".
posted by Mchelly at 11:52 AM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


5/5, meh.
It takes a very carefully calibrated sense of outrage to guess which groups it's ok to insult at any given moment.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 11:52 AM on September 21, 2016 [8 favorites]


'Repugnicans' was good. A bit Martin Amis.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:54 AM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you can train a neural network or whatever the popular AI procedure is these days to moderate these comments, and the example comments offered are a representative sample of the level of conversation in NYT comments sections, then couldn't you just train that AI to write the comments itself? I mean it looks like it's a pretty low bar already.

also I am a human
posted by indubitable at 11:54 AM on September 21, 2016 [15 favorites]


4 out of 5. 102 seconds. Disagreed with them about the last one. Interesting object lesson.
posted by adamrice at 11:55 AM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Apparently "Repugnicans" is sufficiently insulting to be worthwhile of rejection, but offhand characterization of women, or dismissing gay people, that's fine?

I know this was meant to show how hard it is to moderate comments, but instead it just demonstrated that the NY Times would rather bow to conservatives' hurt feelings than to uphold decency.
posted by explosion at 11:55 AM on September 21, 2016 [80 favorites]


I refuse to believe that the last question is not also insulting a class of people. There are very few cases in which an obsession is considered a commendable trait.
posted by INFJ at 11:57 AM on September 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


explosion, the way I justified those decisions in my mind was namecalling versus unfair and untrue but not unheard of opinions.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


So, Repugnicans is name-calling and not an acceptable comment, but "women and their monogamy obsession" is just fine and dandy? I was pretty close to re-activating my NYT subscription. I definitely won't be doing that now.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2016 [17 favorites]


Only 10 percent? Coulda fooled me.
posted by Melismata at 11:59 AM on September 21, 2016


The commenter is making an argument against gay marriage that reflects common language used in the public sphere.

they are literally using "they're just saying what everyone is thinking" as their moderation strategy
posted by poffin boffin at 11:59 AM on September 21, 2016 [55 favorites]


It takes a very carefully calibrated sense of outrage to guess which groups it's ok to insult at any given moment.

Indeed. And the standards are different for a newspaper read nation-wide than for a small community site like Metafilter.

(I got 3/5; the first comment seemed okay apart from "Rethuglicans" and I wasn't sure if that would be considered too insulting. I'm sure it would be acceptable, if juvenile, here, but someone consistently using similar language about "Demoncrats" or whatever the equivalent insult is would get deleted or banned. Community standards exist and matter.)
posted by Rangi at 12:03 PM on September 21, 2016


Well, it is the NYT, not Mother Jones or someone. At the end of the day, they're a broadly centrist publication, and Republicans are hardly at neo-Nazi levels of unacceptability.
posted by acb at 12:05 PM on September 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


explosion, the way I justified those decisions in my mind was namecalling versus unfair and untrue but not unheard of opinions.

I'd wager even money that more Americans find the Republican party repugnant than disapprove of same-sex marriage, or believe women are "obsessed" with monogamy.

To that point, I rejected the "Repugnican" comment because I believe name-calling doesn't raise the level of discourse, but the other comments were not particularly open-minded either. One flatly accuses women of obsession as a class, the other makes a value judgment against a whole class of households simply because of their interpretation of religion.

You'd better believe if someone was baying against miscegenation in the comments, the NY Times would shut that down. They're allowing homophobia only because it's still sufficiently popular, not because it ought to be acceptable, and that's lazy.
posted by explosion at 12:05 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I also got 4/5 because I rejected the last one. It failed the standard of "some effort is made to justify your views" because "because biology" is not an argument. And calling women "insecure" and having an "obsession" is clearly an attack on a class.
posted by zachlipton at 12:07 PM on September 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


If you can train a neural network or whatever the popular AI procedure is these days to moderate these comments, and the example comments offered are a representative sample of the level of conversation in NYT comments sections, then couldn't you just train that AI to write the comments itself?

Obligatory XKCD.
posted by Doktor Zed at 12:08 PM on September 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Apparently “Repugnicans” is sufficiently insulting to be worthwhile of rejection, but offhand characterization of women, or dismissing gay people, that's fine?

As a more general point: a certain kind of punning name calling is pretty much unacceptable across the board in the US; this leads to some weirdness - “General Betray-Us” inspired all kinds of outrage, but “little Marco Rubio”, “Lyin’ Ted” and “Crooked Hillary” are all just run-of-the-mill meanness.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:15 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


We would have approved this comment. Criticism of The Times should be approved in comments so long as commenters make a credible attempt to explain their thinking.

Take it to MetaTimes.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:17 PM on September 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


Who the hell reads the NYT comments?
posted by My Dad at 12:17 PM on September 21, 2016


Repugnicans

Rejected as it is insulting to in any way compare the GOP to the noble Pug.
posted by griphus at 12:29 PM on September 21, 2016 [14 favorites]


Who the hell read the NYT comments?

I do! I actually love a good comment section (hence mefi) and think that additional perspectives often add several layers to my understanding of an issue. Sure, the worst NYT comments are pretty awful and the majority don't raise the discourse any, but the best/"recommended" comments do add something to my experience.

At the very least, I'd say that the NYT has the best-moderated comments of any major newspaper. Incredibly low bar, but...
posted by R a c h e l at 12:30 PM on September 21, 2016 [16 favorites]


I rejected all of them, then I rejected the article. 10/10 would reject again.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:31 PM on September 21, 2016 [42 favorites]


I guessed reject for the last one, based on the attack against a class argument in the previous one, and I didn't change my mind after I saw their reasoning. That definitely rises to attack level as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, though, I prefer less moderation, and sometimes I read comment sections just to get a feel for the way people react to things, so I probably would have let them all stand if I had my druthers. Of course, I might change my mind if I lived in comment sections rather than just visiting sometimes.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:35 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


(Also, I am shocked, shocked to find that most mefites - including myself- would have rejected the right wing comments. Indeed, one possible reading of the article is an attempt to signal that, hey, this paper that is ostensibly the bastion of the left-leaning media isn’t as far left as its critics think it to be. The problem, unfortunately, seems to remain that if you want to sell papes to everyone you need to appeal to everyone. Contra MetaFilter, which can cultivate a smaller userbase. Being “The Paper of Record” seems in many ways to be quite constraining.)
posted by Going To Maine at 12:38 PM on September 21, 2016


What concerns me is that while Google is, no doubt, at the bleeding edge of machine learning, we've seen how poorly automated algorithms function when it comes to human language (see Facebook, Megyn Kelly).

You can learn more about Google Jigsaw at jigsaw.google.com. They aren’t exactly hyper-focused on Machine Learning.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:39 PM on September 21, 2016


Being “The Paper of Record” seems in many ways to be quite constraining.

Constraining the moderators means liberating the commenters. In the long run, I think the NYT is making the right tradeoff. If they took an explicit stance and said "you must be at least this left to comment", anyone too right/center might not even bother reading the paper. Better for them to read it and leave disagreeable comments than be even more bound to Fox News.
posted by Rangi at 12:47 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I rejected all of them, then I rejected the article. 10/10 would reject again.

Amateur! I rejected the author, the illustrator, and the developer who put CSS transitions on those buttons!
posted by Rangi at 12:50 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I waited until the edit window had almost passed, then I rejected this comment.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:54 PM on September 21, 2016


The test presupposes scoring high is "Good" but is just an exercise in aligning your ideology with that espoused by the Community Desk. This paradigm of "Accept" or "Reject" is a presupposition in itself, as well.

I deliberately rejected all 5 comments and so got 2/5. But that's with the awareness that I'm not working for a politicized communications media complex.
posted by polymodus at 12:55 PM on September 21, 2016


Being “The Paper of Record” seems in many ways to be quite constraining.

Constraining the moderators means liberating the commenters. In the long run, I think the NYT is making the right tradeoff. If they took an explicit stance and said "you must be at least this left to comment", anyone too right/center might not even bother reading the paper. Better for them to read it and leave disagreeable comments than be even more bound to Fox News.*


Yeah. I don’t remember if I heard it on Trumpcast or The Run-Up (back before I foreswore most election stuff that risked giving me terror hives), I remember the host of Radio Free GOP explained that he couldn’t correct callers by pointing to, say, WaPo or The NYT because they would by default write off those outlets as being tools of the left. Writing such listeners off is a tactic, but I think it’s simpler to trust that what the NYT does in fact want is a discourse that reflects both the opinions of their readers and the attitudes of the day, a by-product of which is (hopefully…) keeping folks from solely soaking up partisan rhetoric.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:56 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


At the very least, I'd say that the NYT has the best-moderated comments of any major newspaper. Incredibly low bar, but...

Yeah "least worst" is a far cry from "best".
posted by polymodus at 12:58 PM on September 21, 2016


Oh come on guys. This isn't a "left or right" thing. This isn't even a "I believe these are human rights, and they don't." thing.

It's tone as much as anything. "In my experience, women value monogamy and faithfulness more than men" is still limited, but it's infinitely more civil than "women and their obsession with monogamy."

The anti-gay comment is a bit tougher to make civil, but it's a rant including fire and brimstone, Sodom and Gomorrah, and a pot-shot at Obama all in one. You could say something along the lines of same-sex households not being in line with traditional American values. You could say it's out of line with the teachings of the church. But be civil!

This is a paper that won't even use swears in quotes, even in articles where the use of the swear is news. If they won't hold their users to a similar standard of civility, it's hypocritical.
posted by explosion at 12:59 PM on September 21, 2016 [6 favorites]


You can learn more about Google Jigsaw at jigsaw.google.com. They aren’t exactly hyper-focused on Machine Learning.

maybe not hyper-focused but speaking of
posted by griphus at 1:03 PM on September 21, 2016


Who the hell read the NYT comments?

>I do! I actually love a good comment section


I do like the Guardian comments section, since comments on political stories provide some good context for better understanding British politics.
posted by My Dad at 1:22 PM on September 21, 2016


What concerns me is that while Google is, no doubt, at the bleeding edge of machine learning, we've seen how poorly automated algorithms function when it comes to human language (see Facebook, Megyn Kelly).

This makes it sound like Megyn Kelly is a poorly automated algorithm attempting to use human language, which seems like a decent assumption about pretty much everyone on Fox News.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:25 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is a paper that won't even use swears in quotes, even in articles where the use of the swear is news. If they won't hold their users to a similar standard of civility, it's hypocritical.

I don't see the hypocrisy in having one standard for things that come from the mouth of the paper (quoting swear words) and a different one for things that are clearly not "from" the paper, but merely about it.

I see the wisdom in this "rule":
What the New York Times community desk demands most of all is that some effort is made to justify your views. The desk must also be convinced that your intention is to inform and convince rather than to insult and enrage.
And even though the homophobic comment made me itchy, I could understand why it would be approved under the rule above. I did choose wrong on the sexist one though, but looking at it in light of the rule, the commenter provided justification for the insult against women via a flawed and stupid appeal to "biology".

As far as being het up about "repuglicans" vs. insults to women or people in SSMs. I think that the first comment would have been fine with the use of the word "republican" instead. Similarly, I think that if the approved comments had used slurs to describe the targets they would have crossed the line. As it is, the reference the "sodomy" is very very close to the line, and I could see the use of the word "sodomite" pushing it over.

As someone who recognizes her humanity, I can admit that it's a lot easier to find that comments that I disagree with are unworthy. I appreciate the attempt to moderate based on a opinion neutral standard, though most of the time I'll admit that I'm much more comfortable in the bubble created by the MeFi moderating/self-selection paradigm.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:28 PM on September 21, 2016 [4 favorites]


Also I ended up doing ridiculously badly; I rejected the homophobic "Sodom and Gomorrah" nonsense and because that should have been approved I also approved the one about sterilizing people because it was appalling but so was the homophobia, then because that should have been rejected I also rejected the women one but it turns out that one was okay? These lines seem really weird and arbitrary; I understand why saying a group of people should be forcibly sterilized is unacceptable, but I don't understand why a comment that boils down to "BITCHES LOL AMIRITE?" is worth keeping, especially since one of their criteria is "The desk must also be convinced that your intention is to inform and convince rather than to insult and enrage." I have no idea how that comment is viewed as informing or convincing anyone. This system is baffling; it's like it was created by freemen on the land.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:35 PM on September 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


NYTimes: You moderated 5 out of 5 comments as the Community desk would have, and it took you 85 seconds. Moderating the 11,000 comments posted to nytimes.com each day would take you 51.9 hours. Don't feel bad!

Don Pepino: Why would I? I'm not moderating all 11,000, am I? I have 13 co-workers on the Community desk. If you divide 51.9 by 14, you get 3.7. That's 4.3 hrs/day to read Metafilter and play clicker heroes on that sweet Times dime.
posted by Don Pepino at 1:43 PM on September 21, 2016 [16 favorites]


I'm relooking at the article and this line is what sorely stands out:

What the New York Times community desk demands most of all is that some effort is made to justify your views.

To some sociologists, critical theorists, or rhetoricists, the philosophical sloppiness of the line makes it deeply political. The line should be interpreted as their inhabiting a traditional, modernist philosophical position as if they had never heard of the problematics involved in doing so. First order justification, say of the sort taught in academic research, such as the distinction between claim and warrant, cannot justify itself or prove its own validity. What this means is "demanding some effort in justifying" commits several pitfalls by denying its own subjectivity, failing to justify itself in this meta-discourse, and presupposing the simplistic separation of claims and warrants. These problematic moves are what allows political bias to seep in in positions of power in a subtle way.

All this to say, if the community desk were educated in philosophy, sociology, political science, or whatever, they'd recognize in their formalistic argument a fundamental lack of rigor that renders their narrative/rationalization above incoherent. "Demand"? Really! On the other hand—I slightly doubt that a moderation platform run by expert philosophers would fare much better.
posted by polymodus at 1:51 PM on September 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Sweet Times Dime was my club name
posted by griphus at 1:55 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I do wonder about the age, race, and gender of the members of the community desk.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:55 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


You can prob ask Bassey Etim who runs the community desk/is the NYT Community Editor.
posted by griphus at 1:57 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I'll keep my mouth shut."

Let me help you with that, I thought. I got 2/5.
posted by emelenjr at 1:59 PM on September 21, 2016


Guarantee none of the 14 moderators are Trump supporters.
posted by king walnut at 2:01 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


So even the NYT buys into the false idea that Republican is an identity class rather than a voluntary group affiliation. They probably love those dumb "Republican brains walk like this, while Democratic brains walk like this" junk science articles, too, that help reinforce the idea our partisan differences are naturally intractable and about who we are as people. Couldn't be about marketing and exploiting our desire for belonging to groups in a cynical, politically opportunistic way, no. We're all born with a little blue, braying Jackass or a rampaging red Elephant tattooed on our souls, evidently.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:04 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


So even the NYT buys into the false idea that Republican is an identity class rather than a voluntary group affiliation.

Actually, no. To quote the article:
We would have rejected this comment. “Repugnicans” is considered name-calling.
While some approved comments are indeed uncivil, our moderators seek to create a generally civil atmosphere by applying relatively simple and consistent rules. “DemoRATS” “Rethuglicans” and other petty terms to insult political groups are not permitted in comments. By excluding these terms, we hope to encourage a culture of respectful debate. Times moderators often walk a fine line between encouraging open discussion and keeping the comments from devolving into the food fights you see on many other sites.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:14 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


When I checked the NYT comments on their Terence Crutcher story, I couldn't help but notice that the top two comments that they had elevated as NYT select were comments explaining how it was totally justified to kill Crutcher. This did not exactly match the Reader's Picks, to say the least.
posted by tavella at 2:18 PM on September 21, 2016


(Interestingly, no MetaFilter moderators have commented yet about how well they did…)
posted by Going To Maine at 2:20 PM on September 21, 2016


You can prob ask Bassey Etim who runs the community desk/is the NYT Community Editor.

Asked, with the expectation it will remain unanswered. Probably because there are better channels than Twitter, and I’m lazy.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:23 PM on September 21, 2016


I don't understand why a comment that boils down to "BITCHES LOL AMIRITE?" is worth keeping

The set of comments below forms a spectrum:

"BITCHES LOL AMIRITE?"
"Bitches be crazy, they're always trying to tie men down"
"Women and their monogamy obsession. Why are they so insecure and try to fight biology"
"In my experience, women value monogamy and faithfulness more than men, and men are hardwired by biology to seek multiple partners" (apologies to explosion)

The first is insulting and doesn't even express an opinion. The second through fourth express an incorrect opinion (though the second provides no justification for why it would be "crazy" to demand monogamy). The third and fourth are still wrong, repugnant even, but at least provide some hook upon which a rebuttal can be made.

As far as whether they are "worth keeping," that's a judgment call, and while some forums don't think it's worth rehashing arguments from such a clearly wrong-thinking place, the NY Times seems not to want to draw the line there.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:23 PM on September 21, 2016 [7 favorites]


I have 13 co-workers on the Community desk. If you divide 51.9 by 14, you get 3.7. That's 4.3 hrs/day to read Metafilter and play clicker heroes on that sweet Times dime.

It's a 7-day paper, no one works all 7 days, so even if they all work a fulltime week you probably need to adjust to 10 co-workers to allow for 7-day coverage, sick leave, and vacations.
posted by Miko at 2:25 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


The NYTimes, like most other news media, doesn't seem to want to draw any lines anywhere, lest the mere whiff of looking like they possibly glanced longer at one side makes the right-wing noise machine crawl up their ass even further.

It draws lines, just not lines mefites like. If there were no lines, all the comments would be accepted.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:28 PM on September 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is just my personal feeling, but sorting by highly-rated comments or "Times Pick's" comments often yields some insightful reactions or extensions to the topic. What's slightly unsatisfying about a subset of those, though, is yeah often the commenters make terrific critiques of the topic (or sometimes critique of the journalists or the paper), but nothing ever seems to come out of it. It's almost a deconstructed, online way of reminding the choir. Partly it's due to the NYTimes commenting system; it is not structurally conducive to interpersonal discussion, or actively sharing ideas, or conflict resolution, so you see many well-written "statements" per article that stand out yet are so isolated. Maybe this "informs" and "convinces", or maybe it's just people expressing themselves in a social vacuum. On that thought, to what end? For the paper to manipulate and leverage?
posted by polymodus at 2:55 PM on September 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


There is, alas, no NYTMetaTalk. Maybe it’s too large to sustain such a thing.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:00 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


Yeah the weird thing about this to me is - okay it's clearly supposed to be about how you say it rather than what you say (except in extreme cases) and I don't even think that's wrong for they're trying to do. But proceeding with that assumption I still don't think their lines make much sense. I wouldn't have a problem letting sparklemotion's last rephrasing through:

In my experience, women value monogamy and faithfulness more than men, and men are hardwired by biology to seek multiple partners

but "women are insecure and obsessed" is clear and broad name-calling!
posted by atoxyl at 3:07 PM on September 21, 2016


but "women are insecure and obsessed" is clear and broad name-calling!

I disagree, and I'm sensitive to these issues. There's an attribution of offensive stereotypes to women, but there are no epithets, in the sense meaning 'an abusive name.' All the words are, on their own, inoffensive ones. The idea is offensive to many of us, but it is expressed civilly. That's the distinction - that's a bright line for them.
posted by Miko at 3:12 PM on September 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


Former mod: 24 seconds.
posted by zennie at 3:17 PM on September 21, 2016


Extra time due to format. Super easy examples. Low stress. Would mod again.
posted by zennie at 3:19 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


If paid.
posted by zennie at 3:20 PM on September 21, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think the difference is, the NYT is open to offensive statements that someone could argue with -- saying a blanket statement that is based on a line of thought (even if it's wronger than wrong) -- is something that the next commenter can then refute, with facts or reasoning (or whatever). Name calling, or outright hate speech isn't okay, because it gives hate a platform which concedes it to be something worth talking about, or calls the NYT's editorial board into question for allowing hate a forum.

I think this is because the commenting system doesn't really allow for back and forth conversations, and a lot of people using the system just drop their own two cents in and flee. Whereas a site like this, where people are expected to engage with one another if we choose to comment, the bar has to be set higher. Because a conversation is a good thing, and a debate can be an exciting thing, but an argument is no fun for anyone except maybe the arguers, and can lead to all sorts of community problems. The NYT isn't a community, and doesn't pretend to be. I think it's trying to consider itself a town square. That being the case, the fact that they have moderation at all is a point in their favor.

IMO, YMMV
posted by Mchelly at 3:35 PM on September 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think this is because the commenting system doesn't really allow for back and forth conversations, and a lot of people using the system just drop their own two cents in and flee.

This seems almost like an argument for comment threading and some form of upvoting. That is, imagine if the comments picked by readers or editors as the best could be treated as jumping off points for responses, which could then be sub-selected for other responses, etc. etc. on into infinity.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:43 PM on September 21, 2016


I foolishly read the synopses. Totally unnecessary waste of several seconds per.
posted by Don Pepino at 3:47 PM on September 21, 2016


The idea is offensive to many of us, but it is expressed civilly. That's the distinction - that's a bright line for them.

That's the line I'm drawing as well - in fact I'd personally have no objection to debating the underlying ideas of that one even though I think he's not working with a particularly sophisticated or nuanced interpretation. I just did not think it was expressed civilly but obviously fair enough if you disagree.

If I were moderating general newspaper comments I would certainly work from the principle that users should be able to express a pretty wide range of ideas as long as they do it civilly and make the effort to present an argument which others could engage with. I'm just not sure I agree with them about what meets that bar. The sodomy one too - I can see there's a little bit of complexity in deciding whether religious commenters are too nutty. But the chance of that guy contributing to a discussion with what he wrote there is - not high?
posted by atoxyl at 4:01 PM on September 21, 2016


I get what you're saying, but just feel like clarifying on the question of language. I think a commenter, say myself, ought to be able to say something like "men and their obsession with power." That really is civil (as in, no impolite words were used), if not comfortable. None of those words, individually, is an insult or an epithet - not "men," not "women," not "obsession," not "power," not "monogamy." That's the distinction. Saying "men's obsession with power" is very different from saying "pricks" or "dick-swingers" or "Alpha Males;" even if my meaning is equivalent; in one case, there are words freighted with the will to incite an angry or defensive response, to needle someone; the other is an unpleasant and not easily defensible stance and, though it might be a knowing dogwhistle, there is nothing one can point to as an offensive name - "name calling" - recognized by general consensus.
posted by Miko at 4:45 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


You can't untangle the expression of an idea from the idea itself; some ideas are offensive regardless of how they are phrased.

"I think all _____ should be rounded up and executed because our society will be substantially improved once they're all dead" doesn't call anyone names, but it's hardly civil as anyone would understand it.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:05 PM on September 21, 2016


The desk must also be convinced that your intention is to inform and convince rather than to insult and enrage.

This is the thing that I think both the homophobic and the misogynist remarks fail on. Exactly how do they justify that they supposedly think people are really trying to convince anyone with comments like those? These are people who just want to make their hatred heard; they don't have any legitimate basis to believe that they're convincing anybody to their point of view by making remarks like that.

If they could come up with similarly homophobic remarks that were actually made by people who seemed to want to participate in a discussion about those issues, or to inform people about things they don't already know, then I'd grind my teeth a bit but I'd have let them go. But someone saying "gay marriage is sodomy" in the NYT comments on an article about gay marriage does not actually believe that they're converting anybody, and I don't think it actually meets their own standards by a long shot, but it's allowed because it's so commonly done that they aren't going to take a stand on it.
posted by Sequence at 5:33 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I also didn't say they should be able to express anything - the "sterilize the Middle East" comment seems a pretty obvious line-crosser anywhere and in certain fora it's worth being stricter than that. If I were the NYT I would actually be fairly lenient though except [stuff I already said].
posted by atoxyl at 5:35 PM on September 21, 2016


"I think all _____ should be rounded up and executed because our society will be substantially improved once they're all dead" doesn't call anyone names, but it's hardly civil as anyone would understand it.

That's why they have a separate criterion for eliminating comments that include a call to violent or repressive action.
posted by Miko at 7:06 PM on September 21, 2016 [3 favorites]


While this comment does contain content that may be insulting to a broad class of people, we must allow reasonable space for the expression of every point of view that is addressed by our reporting.

No, NYT, no you don't. It's perfectly ok for a newspaper to decide that homophobia and gender essentialism are not ok in your comment section just like deciding you can't call assholes nasty names is.
posted by Soi-hah at 7:44 PM on September 21, 2016 [2 favorites]


I got 4/5, got the last one wrong. I think defining "name-calling" narrowly and literally is a good call though, because it makes the screening process more streamlined and relatively objective. People who use cute names for political opponents ("Shillary", "Obummer", "Dumbocrats", "Rethuglicans", "Donald Drumpf" etc) are usually worthless shitposters. Just nuke the comment whenever you spot one of these and 99% of the time you're improving the level of discourse.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 9:41 PM on September 21, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, I let the sterilization one stand because it seemed to be "detailed proposal even if horrible", but since it was rejected for not enough detail, I felt confident rejecting the "bitches amirite" no-detail one, only to be told it was fine. I still don't understand NYT moderation.
posted by corb at 10:06 PM on September 21, 2016


I'm old enough to remember when the Left and Right would've been completely reversed on this issue. It would have been the Right calling for (light) censorship in the name of civility, and the Left saying anything goes. Such reversals have happened on many issues over the last four decades, come to think of it.
posted by king walnut at 12:10 AM on September 22, 2016 [5 favorites]


4/5. The one I rejected that they said was acceptable was practically a troll. There ain't no way that got posted on a real article and a complete shit storm did not ensue.

(They do not know the correct answers to their own test is what I'm saying and there is nothing that did not infuriate me more than that when I was a student.)
posted by bukvich at 12:29 AM on September 22, 2016 [2 favorites]


In the meantime, YouTube wants you to moderate their comments for free fake Internet points.
posted by Harald74 at 5:06 AM on September 22, 2016


You moderated 3 out of 5 comments as the Community desk would have, and it took you 7 seconds. Moderating the 11,000 comments posted to nytimes.com each day would take you 4.3 hours.

YES! THE NEED FOR SPEED!
posted by theorique at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2016


In the meantime, YouTube wants you to moderate their comments for free fake Internet points.

They also give their "volunteer" moderators the grandiose name of YouTube Heroes. I think a better name would be YouTube An Hero.
posted by theorique at 9:50 AM on September 22, 2016


Given the connotations of "an hero", I disagree.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:06 AM on September 22, 2016


That's the joke. /mcbain
posted by theorique at 10:18 AM on September 22, 2016


Their assessment that "moderating the 11,000 comments posted to nytimes.com each day would take you 55 hours" bothered me a lot. Their math was right if it were to suddenly become my job to moderate ALL comments every day. Assuming literally 8 hours a day doing this work, someone moderating 11000 comments a day would have 2.5 seconds per comment. I'm guessing that's impossible.

However, the paper employs 14 people to do this job: no one person is dealing with 11,000 comments every day. This means that split evenly, each of those 14 people moderates 786 comments every day. At the rate I took that test, I could do a day's work in that job in 3.9 hours. (That's assuming I didn't get any faster than I was in my first 5 moderation decisions, which is probably a faulty assumption.) 3.9 working hours to do a day's work your first day on the job isn't too bad. Given that humans can't work nonstop for 8 hours straight, and all the other stuff an office job entails, this is probably a pretty good rate for anyone doing this job.

It bugs me so much because that calculation was meant to show how tough the job is. The test itself demonstrated the difficulty of the work quite clearly. But they assumed I wouldn't check the math, and the math shows I can do the job as it's being done now.
posted by Cranialtorque at 10:55 AM on September 22, 2016 [3 favorites]


3/5. Allowed "Repugnicans" because whatevs; would have deleted the "sodomy read a Bible" thing.
posted by klangklangston at 11:51 AM on September 22, 2016


« Older Curtis Hanson 1945 - 2016   |   A new rap game has started right here, in your... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments