Some people have been accusing me of creating this bot so I can manifest a one-viewpoint echo chamber. They tell me that they already know that I’m trying to create an echo chamber, anything I say otherwise is a lie, and they’re not interested in talking about the real-world behavior of the bot, even when I offer to fix anything that seems like a real echo chamber effect that it’s creating.
I don’t think it’s creating an echo chamber. We’ve had a Zionist, an opponent of US imperialism, a lot of centrists, some never-Bideners, some fact checking, and one “fuck you.” The code to delete downvoted comments from throwaway accounts is pretty much working, but it’s only been triggered once. Someone said Mike Johnson’s ears were ugly and that made him a bad person, which everyone hated and downvoted, so the bot deleted it since the person that said it didn’t have other recent history to be able to use to categorize them. I sent the user a note explaining how the throwaway detection works.
I want to list out the contentious topics from the week, and how I judge the bot’s performance and the result for each one, to see if the community agrees with me about how things are looking:
Biden’s supreme court changes
- lemmy.world politics: https://slrpnk.net/post/11494089
- Pleasant politics: https://slrpnk.net/post/11493478
I like the performance here. The pleasant comments have a diversity of opinion, but people aren’t fighting or shouting their opinions back and forth at each other. The lemmy.world section looks argumentative and low-quality.
Blue MAGA
- lemmy.world politics: https://slrpnk.net/post/11475921
- Pleasant politics: https://slrpnk.net/post/11487313
I don’t love the one-sidedness of the pleasant comments section. It’s certainly more productive with less argumentation, which is good, but there are only two representatives of one of the major viewpoints chiming in, which starts to sound like an attempt at an echo chamber.
I read the lemmy.world version for a while, and I started to think the result here is acceptable. The pleasant version still has people who have every ability to speak up for the minority viewpoint, but it was limited to people who were being coherent about it, and giving reasons. A lot of the people who spoke up in the lemmy.world version, on both sides, were combative and got engaged in long hostile exchanges, without listening or backing up what they were saying. That’s what I don’t want.
Biden’s Palestine policy
- Pleasant politics: https://slrpnk.net/post/11518516
I don’t love “fuck you.” I debated whether it was protected political speech expressing a viewpoint on the article, or a personal attack, and I couldn’t decide, so I left it up. For one thing, I think it’s good to err on the side of letting people say what they want to the admins, to bend over backwards just slightly to avoid a situation where some users or their viewpoints are more special, or shielded from firm disagreement, than others. And yes, I recognize the irony.
This one is my least favorite comments section. The user who’s engaging in a hostile exchange of short messages has a lot of “rank” to be able to say what they want, and the current model assumes that since people generally like their comments, they should be allowed to speak their mind. The result, however, is starting to look combative to me. It’s still far better than the exchanges from lemmy.world, but I don’t love it.
What does everyone else think? I don’t know if anyone but me cares about these issues in this depth, but I’m interested in hearing any feedback.
I don’t have a problem with “bad language” - I think it’s entirely appropriate to say fuck sometimes. My problem with the comment is its context and its subtext. But before I unpack that, I think we should talk about something else first.
I don’t love “fuck you.” I debated whether it was protected political speech expressing a viewpoint on the article, or a personal attack, and I couldn’t decide, so I left it up.
Saying “fuck you” to an American cop is protected political speech, and you should expect to be protected under the First Amendment. Saying “fuck you” to a cashier at a Wendy’s is not, and there is no constitutional prohibition that will prevent you from being escorted off the premises.
Could you speak a little more on what you mean by “protected political speech” as a criteria for moderation?
If someone walks up to an American cop who’s engaged in watching a protest, not otherwise doing anything, and yells, “fuck you,” that’s easy to interpret as a statement about policing and freedom of assembly in America. It’s not personal to the cop. It’s protected.
If someone is walking around handing out flyers about how the Democrats are a cult, and someone takes a look at the flyer, looks up, and yells, “fuck you,” that’s easy to interpret as a statement about the message the flyer is sending. I don’t think it’s personal to the person handing out flyers. If it proceeded from there into insulting the person directly or threatening them, or anything like that, it would become a personal attack, but as is, I thought it was easy to interpret as a reaction directed at the message you’re sending, not the beginning of an interpersonal conflict.
I’m not using “protected political speech” as any kind of criterion. I’m saying that in general, I would like to let people say what they want to say, and in particular to give extra leeway where speaking hostility to a person in power, and it didn’t seem like a clear personal attack, so I decided to leave it.
When interacting with a remote instance, usually remote Admin accounts aren’t clearly marked the way they are locally - he only saw me as [OP]. I don’t think he realized he was attacking a site Admin in his reply, so he doesn’t get a pass for hostility to a “person in power.” His hostility was merely hostility.
As an aside, American cops aren’t protected against personal attacks. Insults to their profession and their person are both protected speech, from what I understand. Officers are expected to show restraint when insulted, although that’s not often the case. There’s a class of speech defined as “Fighting Words” - IANAL but when it comes to police, unless you’re saying “I’m going to punch you” or some similar specific violent threat, I believe your speech is protected by the First Amendment, and in case it is not, there’s a lawsuit you’re likely to win.
I think we both value diversity of opinion, and I appreciate you putting yourself out as a moderator and trying new things. We’ve both accepted roles that gives us small privileges, but mostly responsibility. I value your contribution to the instance, and I hope that’s communicated through this dialogue despite our disagreements.
At this point my goal is not to convince you to take a specific moderator action. I’m responding to the observation that !pleasantpolitics seems to be deviating from the goals you initially set, and I’d like to understand and clarify what is going on.
That’s fair.
Like I said, I think this is a borderline case. The comment in question could be concisely expressing a political viewpoint about your posting and how it relates to a growing movement in American politics to give harsh criticism to Democratic politicians in ways that, intentionally or not, give aid and comfort to a takeover of the system by elements that are an existential threat to everybody in the US, on every side. Or, it could be just content-free hostility. It’s hard to tell, and since the poster in general is a certified non-jerk, I erred on the side of leaving it. But I can understand the other side of it, absolutely.
A handful of people gave me reports that your postings were “unpleasant,” which I objected to in order to protect your right to say what you want. I feel the same way about someone who has a generally good posting record coming in and being Zionist or leaving a bluntly rude comment about the topic of an article.
I get it. You’re not wrong. I think it might be worth me adding an entry to the FAQ, along the lines of:
Q: This isn’t pleasant!
A: “Pleasant” was the wrong word. People will sometimes say things you find unpleasant, potentially more so than on Lemmy usually, since the human moderation is lighter. That’s by design. Many Lemmy communities contain a large amount of content which is “polite” or “civil” but which in the aggregate is detracting significantly from the experience. I do plan to allow content which is offensive, up to a certain point, as long as it doesn’t become a dominant force.
The theory is that we’re all adults, and we can handle an occasional rude comment or viewpoint we don’t like. If someone is a habitual line-stepper, then they will get escorted to the door, but part of the whole point is that the good actors can be free of a moderator looking over their shoulder on every comment deciding whether or not they’re allowed to say it.
That’s not to mean this is a “free speech” community. If content that’s offensive for the sake of offensiveness starts to proliferate, then I’ll probably put rules into place to address it. But you will find content that is not “pleasant.”
What do you think?
I do feel the community is trending towards an echo chamber. I think it is systemic, but I don’t think it’s intentional.
There’s a version of the prisoner’s dilemma that occurs in online debates. When both people argue in good faith and listen to each other, the discussion takes the most amount of time and mental effort, but there is also a feeling that the effort was not wasted. When one person is arguing in good faith while the other is engaging with low effort or trolling, the effort put into a good faith argument feels wasted. When both participants troll each other, nobody is seriously challenged, but neither of them waste very much time or mental effort in the process either.
This is meant to be an amoral framing of the situation. Time is limited, so time spent inventing novel arguments to convince an implacable enemy is time that could be spent doing something more effective, so trolling makes sense. Obviously when this approach is the dominant strategy in a forum, the space becomes toxic, anti-intellectual, and useless for evaluating the strength of ideas. I feel like you implicitly understand that, and are trying to create tools to make it easier to prevent that from happening.
Your tool is based on votes. People often vote for opinions they agree with, against those that they disagree with. Sometimes they vote for well-thought out arguments, and against low effort trolling. So your algorithm basically divides people into four groups. Group one are people who have both unpopular opinions and express them in toxic and low-effort ways. They are extremely likely to be banned algorithmically because they get both kinds of downvotes.
Group two are people who have unpopular opinions, but are good at expressing themselves in a way such that several people who don’t agree with them still value their contribution. Your algorithm is likely to allow them to participate even with the tax of downvotes they get due to the unpopularity of their views. These people also make the most valuable contribution to a forum that is based on good faith discussion and debate, because if these people leave, you are left with the last two groups - three high effort popular opinion people, and four low effort popular opinion people. A space that includes primarily groups three and four together and excludes the other two is an echo chamber.
Group four is the problem. If they are allowed to participate in discussion without repercussions, they will eventually drive group two out, by either making them feel their time is being wasted so they leave, or by changing their strategy and joining group one. There is no simple algorithmic solution to this problem. I think your experiment has attracted a number of group two people due to the novelty of your experiment and the over-representation of anarchists on the instance you’ve chosen to host it, but they are not guaranteed to continue to participate. Lemmy.World is a pretty low bar to use as a measuring stick, but given the incentive structure at play, I think there is a real danger of falling below that standard unless the bot’s algorithmic decisions are complemented by active human moderators who dis-incentivize and weed out people from group four.
