the-doomed-posts-of-muteKi

I'm the hedgehog masque replica guy

嘘だらけ塗ったチョースト


twitter, if you must
twitter.com/the_damn_muteKi

kaara
@kaara
This post has content warnings for: the contents of this post contain opinions which are my own.

eebee-cannoli
@eebee-cannoli

Please be patient with the team


the-doomed-posts-of-muteKi
@the-doomed-posts-of-muteKi

For what it's worth I think there's something to be said about making it actionable for someone to be linking to their own gab account in their bio, even if it's something done indirectly through a linktree or something similar. Given that this was how the stalker account this appears to be about was actually identified, the arguably generous interpretation of what this person was here to do was to further the reach of their own hate speech (because the alternatives are significantly more directly violent).

I think everyone seems to be on the same page in this occasion that moderation in this instance could and should have been more proactive more quickly, but I also can't imagine making a rule like this explicit will be harmful to the vulnerable people on this site. If someone is using these sites for anti-fascist intelligence gathering they're not likely to be outing themselves publicly about it here.

In that sense I think we should absolutely view accounts like the one that moderation failed in acting against as obviously here in bad faith and shouldn't tolerate them, and it shouldn't be controversial that they get removed. If this sort of thing is not part of explicit moderation policy it needs to be.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @kaara's post:

I imagine those reactions are holdovers from being on much larger sites with much more resistance to doung the right thing. Users here are so tired of things going bad so fast abd so suddenly, and moderation being so ambivalent to change things for the better they feel threats to the overall traffic and boycotting are the only way anyone can achieve positive change. Its hard to get out of that mindset, i would ask patience with the userbase as they discover you are in fact different.

i know Ruby was worried this was about her, and so i sought out this post to read it and saw: it's not about her, it's about everyone else's reaction to her situation, because others were saying things much more strongly than her. she's still reeling with having to be the target of nazis so hopefully folks will leave her alone after this.

everyone is dealing with this being a skirmish with nazis and feeling uncomfortable, so tensions feel pretty high, so i want to just say: thank you for doing your best, thank you for reconsidering, thank you for trying to explain your thought process and be transparent

i learned from adminning a fairly popular masto instance and dealing with literal nazis on kiwifarms targeting ppl on the server that the people who are targeted or are direct community of those targeted are going to have very strong reactions to their sense of safety being threatened by the nazis, so i hope everyone takes a moment to reflect on this situation and understand that for this particular issue, this is a good ending

also I hope the nazis die and leave Ruby alone

100% on your side, but i also understand why people tend to act like this: on pretty much every major social media site there is some form of moderation, but most of them don't have an active conversation around it. on here we talked about it and peacefully resolved the issue. if this had happened on twitter that person would just stay unbanned, and any attempt to contact the moderators would be more than pointless. people are just not used to social media platforms not being shit! it doesn't excuse it, but it shows how much better cohost is than others lol

Absolutely agree with you. That kind of mistake is understandable especially if you've worked in moderation elsewhere where the expectations are different and especially for cases involving primarily off-site activity. It's clear to me that you care deeply about maintaining a good community that takes such abuse seriously, enough to admit mistakes and make corrections, even when others misunderstand you, argue in bad faith and generate drama rather than talk and debate things out. The habit of feeling powerless against bad moderation decisions in the past is also understandable coming from other websites and communities but not here.

Acting with good faith doesn't mean giving the benefit of the doubt. It just means being sincere about what you say and do, as opposed to acting with some ulterior, malicious motive. I don't think you can say that those criticisms you mention were made in bad faith just because they were disheartening to hear.

It's fair enough to ask users that, when they think you've messed up, they consider that you'll come around on that and fix the mistake. But if they don't, you can't pretend they're not reacting in good faith - they're just taking you at face value. I don't think those criticisms were unreasonable - overreactions, maybe, but not unreasonable. (Well, except thinking you were purposely trying to smuggle a Nazi in - that's assuming bad faith on your part which I think is unfair.)

I sort of feel like good/bad faith in this post is being used to mean "you should have faith in us". Which isn't really what those phrases mean, those refer to sincerity/earnestness. But I also think trust is earned and not something you can demand of people, and if people don't trust you getting mad at them for not having trusted you definitely won't make them trust you more.