This post has content warnings for: !!, i swear this is the last one, and update for the last post, ed mention, sh mention, suicide.
- she/her
- celeste.lol/
if you use the phrase "be normal" as if it's something to aspire to, kindly take a long walk off a short plank. or block me. whichever is easier for you.
child of the 80s
i escaped a cult.
all of the content warnings.
all of them.
tag: exerian's tragic backstory
 |  |  |
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @lexi's post:
That's how I feel. Especially since the original post couldn't be bothered to even at least have a content warning, AND the fact that staff personally emailed them and basically said "seems like a you problem."
But that's sort of part of the issue with any site like this; ultimately we don't collectively make decisions, the staff do. And no person is perfect, so we were eventually going to run into an issue like this. And hey, that's how most websites work, right? But usually they hide it behind layers and layers of corporate bull. Here there's only a handful of staff, so it's crystal clear who's making the decisions.
Not downplaying how awful the decision was. There is really no excuse here. I hope staff can at least have some self-reflection to realize the obvious issue. And at most, I hope there is a new method of moderation because whatever they're doing now is embarrassingly biased and will lead to more controversies in the future.
in reply to @lexi's post:
i reported a harassment screed from someone recently and kara straight up told me "this doesn't violate community guidelines" so i'm already not feeling very positive about how the team is handling moderation lately
while it's true that a space can't be safe for everyone, a public space's curators have to at least try to make the space safer when it's clear the situation cannot be solved by user-controlled safety tools.
if they're not, how is it any better than twitter at the end of the day?
yep. on twitter you have a 1% chance for someone getting their post deleted for posting suicide bait or harassment, on here apparently zero. thought this would be a good place moderation-wise but it does not look good with the recent stuff that went down. its just disappointing
in reply to @lexi's post:
honestly, for a site with literally 4 admins that also have other things to do, moderation probably isn't good, just something that happens much more rarely than on other platforms?
why they couldn't just cw the post. everybody, including me, would shut up about it if they just put a warning on it and that's it. they reserve the right to do that, think this particular post should have a click-through and don't do it? okay then fuck me i guess
it honestly sucks that i feel like i'm bitching about this whole situation
ya i didnt know the community guidelines before this post. but the "staff can cw something" seems like it shud have applied. a lot of people got hurt it seems like and its just like one post and one cw
every social media has community guidelines and, theoretically, every user should read 'em beforehand, but no one does. the point is that the post doesn't break community guidelines according to staff and that's fine, whatever, but they admit that this should be behind a warning and don't... do exactly that? lol
the one thing in this post that, i don't know how to describe the thought it gave me but i'm optimistic
we intend to add content like this to the “sensitive content” passage of the new community guidelines to encourage people to provide them out of consideration in the future, and remind them that we reserve the right to add the CW ourselves.
maybe this is a "we can't enforce this with how the rules are currently written, and that's why this is being addressed in the new rules" thing?
granted i don't have much of a horse in this race, it's just something I've watched unfold from my impulsive original reblog of the inciting post that I later took back, so I dunno.
yeah, the last bit is at least them admitting "We wrote rules; we gotta follow 'em; this rule sucks; we gotta change it."
They're in quite a position right now. Just taking their example of "photos of the common antifascist agitprop tags" - do allow them! do not ban them, do never ban them! but do require CWs on them, and mod the posts with them if they're missing. That's all I ask from @staff right now.
well, that fkin sucks, and it shows a deep misunderstanding from staff...even then, i feel like simple empathy wldve been enough to understand why its a problem (uu
very clear frm these emails that @staff don't realize how lucky they are that invites have tended to go toward The Right People. there is zero difference between how they are handling this and how the bluesky people would do it (or the reddit people would do it eight years ago (or moot ten years ago (or livejo(etc))). 420chan had stronger rule enforcement than what's happening here ffs! and that place WAS CALLED "FOUR TWENTY CHAN." how are you failing to clear that bar?
this place is gonna be Yet Another "forum that imploded in 48 hours after failing to nip a problem in the bud for three straight months" if they can't get their shit together soon. these mistakes have been made so, so, so many times. they want to be the site that Learned From Those Mistakes; finish learning from them.
idk, I don't think "posting a picture of someone saying this is different than saying it yourself" is a crazy line to draw, and I think given that line it's a bit inaccurate to make the blanket statement that it's "allowed without CWs"
from the point of view of someone who doesn't want to see that stuff, it's not really any different
either way, they're seeing that stuff. it doesn't matter all that much whether the poster is writing their own hate or rebroadcasting someone else's, it's still exposing people to hate
I might even agree with you that the line between "posting documentation of X" and "posting X yourself" isn't the best one to draw, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one to draw either. And again it's certainly the case that suicide bait in the strictest sense is forbidden on this website.
You say that "it's still exposing people to hate", and I think there's an important point there: preventing people from being exposed to hate in general does not seem to be a goal of the community guidelines. They include provisions to prevent people from being harassed, either in a targeted way or as a member of a protected group. But not seeing hate at all is left up to each user's curation of their own timeline.
Again, it's fair game to disagree with that choice, but it is an intentional choice they're making and their moderation decisions here are consistent with it.
we are deeply uncomfortable with the concept of the latter category of post being blanket bannable; it would ban e.g. photos of the common antifascist agitprop tags depicting Hitler holding a gun to his head with the text “follow your leader”.
If we ban things that encourage suicide, it's a slippery slope to banning ... other things that encourage suicide??? How is that a persuasive argument to anyone arguing against the banner post? Yes! Those would be/are bad too!