I hate to say this, but are you willing to extend this reasoning to moderators here in Lemmy? They’re also giving their free labor here, right?
Sure. Although presumably they also own the instance, so it is free labour like clearing your own laneway of snow is free labour, being the benefactor of the capital ownership. That is different to volunteering to clear the snow in the Walmart parking lot.
Selling accounts feeds the misinformation machine.
Only if the moderators can’t keep up due to the aforementioned volume problem. The “trustworthiness” of the account has no bearing on the “trustworthiness” of the message that gets delivered. A professional surgeon exclaiming that the world is flat wouldn’t make it any more believable than a homeless person standing on the street corner. The person delivering the message is irrelevant, hence why it is a logical fallacy to try and ascribe value to a person’s character in this regard.
My apologies if I have been combative in my tone
No need to apologize. Tone has no bearing on the content you are delivering. If I cannot separate the two, I have failed as a human and can be lumped among the braindead.
No need to apologize. Tone has no bearing on the content you are delivering.
Thank you! It’s really been a breath of fresh air to be able to assume that the person I’m talking to is arguing in good faith.
Now, to address your points.
As far as I’ve understood Lemmy and how federation works, moderators and admins are two separate things, with their own separate responsibilities (and hopefully) with their own separate (albeit overlapping) mechanisms and toolsets for content moderation. But that’s mostly besides your point which is “it is free labour like clearing your own laneway of snow is free labour.” I think we’re on the same page there. The dynamics are a little bit different here, but I would argue that the challenges are still similar enough.
Another point that I would like to briefly mention here is the incentives one might have to moderate a community here, or in Reddit. It’s the desire to cultivate a community of like-minded people.
For all the faults of Reddit has, I think its greatest edge (and greatest weakness, in other respects, in my opinion) is that it provides a ‘one-stop-shop’ for people to find a community of like-minded people. That by funneling a huge amount of people into one place, it makes it easier to find other people interested in, for example: prostitution in late medieval Constantinople (a facetious example, but I hope that illustrates my point well enough). It’s easier to find people to establish a community for really niche subjects when you’ve a lot of people in one place. This also increases the desire to nurture that community, even to the point of withstanding abuse, not just from users, but also from admins and whoever else.
A point that I have probably not addressed well enough in my previous reply is the challenges of content moderation everywhere (from small forums, to Reddit, to Lemmy). I hope you’ll agree with me that it is a huge challenge especially in places with a large amount of activity. Sifting through each report, making sure that you’re making the best judgement call for each case, is not an easy task.
This brings me to your next point, which I admit I’ve sidestepped a bit: “The “trustworthiness” of the account has no bearing on the “trustworthiness” of the message.” I agree, in principle, but in practice? I doubt it. A good portion of the report I’ve linked earlier has described the amount of work that goes into making a fake account trustworthy. Even if we assume that moderators scrutinize every report, checking the account’s activity history, and even (in the case of FB), going through the trouble of cross-checking friends and mutual friends, it would be a difficult job separating fake accounts, from legitimate, albeit similar-looking ones. Furthermore, the time and effort that would go into this would, assuming limited time and resources—especially if we’re talking about volunteer community moderators, detract from other moderation tasks that need attention as well. Given a glut of accounts for sale, it would be far easier for troll farm operators to just buy more accounts, disposing of “exposed ones” as they go.
I do hope I’ve addressed your points satisfactorily. It’s been a pleasure discussing this with you thus far.
Well, I don’t know if I’d go that far. By common definition, argument implies that one wants to persuade another to share in their views. Truthfully, I have no care as to what kind of views you hold. There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.
moderators and admins are two separate things
Yes, it is true that you can metaphorically “shovel the parking lot at Walmart” on Lemmy, but my assumption was that anyone who has an interest in moderating would also take ownership of an instance. That said, it seems we are moving past the question of: Who cares if they have to work like a dog? One does not become a volunteer moderator if they don’t like the work. Perhaps providing more moderator duties is actually providing them a service?
I agree, in principle, but in practice?
I took that you already suggested that some people just aren’t capable of understanding the seperation, and I acknowledged that as being a real, possible scenario. But I also questioned how far you can really go by babysitting them. At some point you have to accept the lost cause, no?
If the likes of you and I are doing our jobs properly, our world should be robust enough to handle those with such disabilities and other life challenges. Are you suggesting that you and I have failed?
There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.
In most cases, yeah, I’d agree. In this particular case, it can be argued one way or the other. Someone can see us and say “megane-kun is trying to convince me not to sell my account,” for example. Personally, I agree with you on that one point in this instance. I think we’re just two people exchanging views on a certain question. But in certain cases, where persuasion leads to action, it’s different. And this is actually pretty much intertwined to the topic at hand. It is this potential for action that makes persuasion valuable in certain cases.
I took that you already suggested that some people just aren’t capable of understanding the seperation, and I acknowledged that as being a real, possible scenario. But I also questioned how far you can really go by babysitting them. At some point you have to accept the lost cause, no?
I’m arguing that, no, in certain instances, and in the cases that are most relevant to the question of selling one’s account, that there are people at work in making this separation really hard. That the job of a troll farm, the most likely buyer of one’s account, is to make that distinction be very hard for community moderators and ordinary people alike (even more so for the latter), and the effort to make the distinction incredibly hard as to give up on it, or make sloppy shortcuts (account age, karma, etc). Why do all this? To influence others to do certain things, be it in politics (voting for one person over the other), or in advertising (buying one product that you don’t need).
Personally, however, I agree. Some people can’t just be helped, and that it’s unfortunate that this kind of people could be a majority. However, since I know with certain confidence, that there are bad actors at play that working overtime such that the likes of us would fail, always, I have to just be a little more understanding, and be aware that I myself can fall victim to such machinations.
I suppose the crux of this discussion is this: I am arguing that selling my account helps the disinformation machine, you’re arguing that it doesn’t matter, that the responsibility lies in the person imbibing information.
If that’s the case (and that I’m understanding you properly), well, personally speaking, I see no reason why it can’t be both: be responsible in imbibing information, but be aware that there are bad actors at play (and don’t lend these bad actors a hand).
I think we’re just two people exchanging views on a certain question.
Wouldn’t you say that writing comments on forums is a solitary activity? I mean, there is good reason to believe you exist out there as another person, but is that not just an implementation detail of the software? Would it make any difference if the software quietly replaced you with something akin to ChatGPT? The answer is no. If done well, I’d never notice. The value is not in the exchange with another person either.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe there can be value in exchange with other people. But when one seeks that they go outside. This environment is quite different; it is very much designed around the individual.
But in certain cases, where persuasion leads to action, it’s different.
I didn’t mean to suggest that argument cannot happen, but I don’t see the value in it. I don’t find enjoyment in changing random interest stranger’s (or ChatGPT model’s) minds. And when I’m spending my precious free time, it had better be enjoyably spent. If they are “wrong”, that’s their problem. One needs to take some relaxing downtime just for themselves now and again.
that the responsibility lies in the person imbibing information.
Well, I suggest that the responsibility lies on us to create a world where people struggling with misinformation is not an impediment. I get the appeal of trying to sweep them under the rug. It unquestionably makes things easier, like not needing to accommodate those in wheelchairs makes things easier. But must we take the easy road?
My argument has always rested on the question of why someone might buy an account. Whatever it is that we enjoy online, in places such as Lemmy, Reddit, or whatever, is besides the point.
I get the appeal of trying to sweep them under the rug. It unquestionably makes things easier, like not needing to accommodate those in wheelchairs makes things easier. But must we take the easy road?
I’d say it’s not even a problem of someone sweeping things under the rug, but an intruder throwing dust and trash all around.
I think I’ve already said my piece here, and as you’ve said: “Truthfully, I have no care as to what kind of views you hold. There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.”
My argument has always rested on the question of why someone might buy an account.
And that is because the good names are already taken. People are also paying stupid amounts of money to secure an already registered <desirable name>.com and it is clearly for reasons of vanity, not malicious activity.
Technically speaking, jfkldajflkdnalkmfq3u409ijaeklfja0ui3qjaklfa.tires works just as well as any other domain name. Cheap bastards like me would unquestionably choose that over paying millions for something that looks nicer, but those with millions to burn clearly have other ideas.
I’d say it’s not even a problem of someone sweeping things under the rug, but an intruder throwing dust and trash all around.
The disabled and people with other life challenges will always exist. Call them swept under the rug or trash thrown around, but either way, why do you believe that is the right approach to dealing with them as opposed to accommodating them? Just because it is easier for you?
Sure. Although presumably they also own the instance, so it is free labour like clearing your own laneway of snow is free labour, being the benefactor of the capital ownership. That is different to volunteering to clear the snow in the Walmart parking lot.
Only if the moderators can’t keep up due to the aforementioned volume problem. The “trustworthiness” of the account has no bearing on the “trustworthiness” of the message that gets delivered. A professional surgeon exclaiming that the world is flat wouldn’t make it any more believable than a homeless person standing on the street corner. The person delivering the message is irrelevant, hence why it is a logical fallacy to try and ascribe value to a person’s character in this regard.
No need to apologize. Tone has no bearing on the content you are delivering. If I cannot separate the two, I have failed as a human and can be lumped among the braindead.
Thank you! It’s really been a breath of fresh air to be able to assume that the person I’m talking to is arguing in good faith.
Now, to address your points.
As far as I’ve understood Lemmy and how federation works, moderators and admins are two separate things, with their own separate responsibilities (and hopefully) with their own separate (albeit overlapping) mechanisms and toolsets for content moderation. But that’s mostly besides your point which is “it is free labour like clearing your own laneway of snow is free labour.” I think we’re on the same page there. The dynamics are a little bit different here, but I would argue that the challenges are still similar enough.
Another point that I would like to briefly mention here is the incentives one might have to moderate a community here, or in Reddit. It’s the desire to cultivate a community of like-minded people.
For all the faults of Reddit has, I think its greatest edge (and greatest weakness, in other respects, in my opinion) is that it provides a ‘one-stop-shop’ for people to find a community of like-minded people. That by funneling a huge amount of people into one place, it makes it easier to find other people interested in, for example: prostitution in late medieval Constantinople (a facetious example, but I hope that illustrates my point well enough). It’s easier to find people to establish a community for really niche subjects when you’ve a lot of people in one place. This also increases the desire to nurture that community, even to the point of withstanding abuse, not just from users, but also from admins and whoever else.
A point that I have probably not addressed well enough in my previous reply is the challenges of content moderation everywhere (from small forums, to Reddit, to Lemmy). I hope you’ll agree with me that it is a huge challenge especially in places with a large amount of activity. Sifting through each report, making sure that you’re making the best judgement call for each case, is not an easy task.
This brings me to your next point, which I admit I’ve sidestepped a bit: “The “trustworthiness” of the account has no bearing on the “trustworthiness” of the message.” I agree, in principle, but in practice? I doubt it. A good portion of the report I’ve linked earlier has described the amount of work that goes into making a fake account trustworthy. Even if we assume that moderators scrutinize every report, checking the account’s activity history, and even (in the case of FB), going through the trouble of cross-checking friends and mutual friends, it would be a difficult job separating fake accounts, from legitimate, albeit similar-looking ones. Furthermore, the time and effort that would go into this would, assuming limited time and resources—especially if we’re talking about volunteer community moderators, detract from other moderation tasks that need attention as well. Given a glut of accounts for sale, it would be far easier for troll farm operators to just buy more accounts, disposing of “exposed ones” as they go.
I do hope I’ve addressed your points satisfactorily. It’s been a pleasure discussing this with you thus far.
Well, I don’t know if I’d go that far. By common definition, argument implies that one wants to persuade another to share in their views. Truthfully, I have no care as to what kind of views you hold. There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.
Yes, it is true that you can metaphorically “shovel the parking lot at Walmart” on Lemmy, but my assumption was that anyone who has an interest in moderating would also take ownership of an instance. That said, it seems we are moving past the question of: Who cares if they have to work like a dog? One does not become a volunteer moderator if they don’t like the work. Perhaps providing more moderator duties is actually providing them a service?
I took that you already suggested that some people just aren’t capable of understanding the seperation, and I acknowledged that as being a real, possible scenario. But I also questioned how far you can really go by babysitting them. At some point you have to accept the lost cause, no?
If the likes of you and I are doing our jobs properly, our world should be robust enough to handle those with such disabilities and other life challenges. Are you suggesting that you and I have failed?
In most cases, yeah, I’d agree. In this particular case, it can be argued one way or the other. Someone can see us and say “megane-kun is trying to convince me not to sell my account,” for example. Personally, I agree with you on that one point in this instance. I think we’re just two people exchanging views on a certain question. But in certain cases, where persuasion leads to action, it’s different. And this is actually pretty much intertwined to the topic at hand. It is this potential for action that makes persuasion valuable in certain cases.
I’m arguing that, no, in certain instances, and in the cases that are most relevant to the question of selling one’s account, that there are people at work in making this separation really hard. That the job of a troll farm, the most likely buyer of one’s account, is to make that distinction be very hard for community moderators and ordinary people alike (even more so for the latter), and the effort to make the distinction incredibly hard as to give up on it, or make sloppy shortcuts (account age, karma, etc). Why do all this? To influence others to do certain things, be it in politics (voting for one person over the other), or in advertising (buying one product that you don’t need).
Personally, however, I agree. Some people can’t just be helped, and that it’s unfortunate that this kind of people could be a majority. However, since I know with certain confidence, that there are bad actors at play that working overtime such that the likes of us would fail, always, I have to just be a little more understanding, and be aware that I myself can fall victim to such machinations.
I suppose the crux of this discussion is this: I am arguing that selling my account helps the disinformation machine, you’re arguing that it doesn’t matter, that the responsibility lies in the person imbibing information.
If that’s the case (and that I’m understanding you properly), well, personally speaking, I see no reason why it can’t be both: be responsible in imbibing information, but be aware that there are bad actors at play (and don’t lend these bad actors a hand).
Wouldn’t you say that writing comments on forums is a solitary activity? I mean, there is good reason to believe you exist out there as another person, but is that not just an implementation detail of the software? Would it make any difference if the software quietly replaced you with something akin to ChatGPT? The answer is no. If done well, I’d never notice. The value is not in the exchange with another person either.
Don’t get me wrong. I do believe there can be value in exchange with other people. But when one seeks that they go outside. This environment is quite different; it is very much designed around the individual.
I didn’t mean to suggest that argument cannot happen, but I don’t see the value in it. I don’t find enjoyment in changing random interest stranger’s (or ChatGPT model’s) minds. And when I’m spending my precious free time, it had better be enjoyably spent. If they are “wrong”, that’s their problem. One needs to take some relaxing downtime just for themselves now and again.
Well, I suggest that the responsibility lies on us to create a world where people struggling with misinformation is not an impediment. I get the appeal of trying to sweep them under the rug. It unquestionably makes things easier, like not needing to accommodate those in wheelchairs makes things easier. But must we take the easy road?
My argument has always rested on the question of why someone might buy an account. Whatever it is that we enjoy online, in places such as Lemmy, Reddit, or whatever, is besides the point.
I’d say it’s not even a problem of someone sweeping things under the rug, but an intruder throwing dust and trash all around.
I think I’ve already said my piece here, and as you’ve said: “Truthfully, I have no care as to what kind of views you hold. There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.”
And that is because the good names are already taken. People are also paying stupid amounts of money to secure an already registered <desirable name>.com and it is clearly for reasons of vanity, not malicious activity.
Technically speaking, jfkldajflkdnalkmfq3u409ijaeklfja0ui3qjaklfa.tires works just as well as any other domain name. Cheap bastards like me would unquestionably choose that over paying millions for something that looks nicer, but those with millions to burn clearly have other ideas.
The disabled and people with other life challenges will always exist. Call them swept under the rug or trash thrown around, but either way, why do you believe that is the right approach to dealing with them as opposed to accommodating them? Just because it is easier for you?