wtfunny wrote:
Wejo, can you please outline one thing that after reading this thread, you think you guys might need to consider doing differently?
Sure.
1) Be sure we are looking at the reported posts more often. Time is important. A lot of posts we don't want on her are deleted but not quickly enough.
2) Have a dialogue with our visitors about what we are doing with moderation.
3) Be more likely to be ban people even if at least temporarily when they are creating problems.
4) Review the posts are moderators are deleting to make sure they are not abusing their power.
5) Consider coming up with ways to show people the type of posts we delete or ban to be more transparent.
6) Reiterate to people the goal is for them to not read anything they find offensive.
I don't doubt for a second people will find stuff offensive.
Some of the examples in this thread itself shows how moderation isn't easy. There was a link to a thread about an an Australian Diplomat calling for emergency visas for white farmers. It linked to an article in the NY Times.
Some said it was racist or race baiting. I can understand where they are coming from. Others were fine with it.
Then there was another thread that linked to an article on the Jeffrey Epstein case and how it was evidence of a Zionist-Illuminati Sexual Blackmail System. Some said it was antiSemetic. I can understand where they are coming from. What was most interesting to me was some people were fine with one thread but not the other or vice versa.
Take Donald Trump's tweets on twitter that the House condemned as racist today. Twitter said they did not violate their policies. Point is people can see the same issue very differently.
7) The one debate we are having internally is whether to ban people who are uncivil or make personal attacks. I think they should be banned. You can disagree with someone without name calling . Disagree with them on the facts. Even if someone posts something you consider racist/sexist. Argue against it. The worst of the worst will be removed (ie racial slurs, etc), but if someone posts something you find offensive why not argue against it instead of calling them names?
I'm simplifying this a bit.
In terms of out internal debate, I banned someone for a few days who in a post used the phrase "nasty looking butch democrats." Another mod was surprised. I said I want a more civil LetsRun.com. Bringing politics into a non political thread with a speech intended as a slur "butch democrats" isn't civil and isn't necessary. However the slur wasn't directed at another poster.
But then we need to try and write this into our TOS as that type of stuff isn't there beyond us calling on people to "Be civil"
The same mod didn't disagree with me banning the person who wrote, "Shut up fukktard. I peg you as a rider of garbage carbon frame Shimano plasti-bikes. You have no soul, no flavor. You also went full retard man. Have you not learned by now you never go full retard? Yeah, the tour is still BORING AS PHUKK. "
Way more uncivil and directed at another poster.