cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/5772572
The current state of moderation across various online communities, especially on platforms like Reddit, has been a topic of much debate and dissatisfaction. Users have voiced concerns over issues such as moderator rudeness, abuse, bias, and a failure to adhere to their own guidelines. Moreover, many communities suffer from a lack of active moderation, as moderators often disengage due to the overwhelming demands of what essentially amounts to an unpaid, full-time job. This has led to a reliance on automated moderation tools and restrictions on user actions, which can stifle community engagement and growth.
In light of these challenges, it’s time to explore alternative models of community moderation that can distribute responsibilities more equitably among users, reduce moderator burnout, and improve overall community health. One promising approach is the implementation of a trust level system, similar to that used by Discourse. Such a system rewards users for positive contributions and active participation by gradually increasing their privileges and responsibilities within the community. This not only incentivizes constructive behavior but also allows for a more organic and scalable form of moderation.
Key features of a trust level system include:
- Sandboxing New Users: Initially limiting the actions new users can take to prevent accidental harm to themselves or the community.
- Gradual Privilege Escalation: Allowing users to earn more rights over time, such as the ability to post pictures, edit wikis, or moderate discussions, based on their contributions and behavior.
- Federated Reputation: Considering the integration of federated reputation systems, where users can carry over their trust levels from one community to another, encouraging cross-community engagement and trust.
Implementing a trust level system could significantly alleviate the current strains on moderators and create a more welcoming and self-sustaining community environment. It encourages users to be more active and responsible members of their communities, knowing that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded. Moreover, it reduces the reliance on a small group of moderators, distributing moderation tasks across a wider base of engaged and trusted users.
For communities within the Fediverse, adopting a trust level system could mark a significant step forward in how we think about and manage online interactions. It offers a path toward more democratic and self-regulating communities, where moderation is not a burden shouldered by the few but a shared responsibility of the many.
As we continue to navigate the complexities of online community management, it’s clear that innovative approaches like trust level systems could hold the key to creating more inclusive, respectful, and engaging spaces for everyone.
Related
Lemmy is relatively small. Even the most active communities do not have many issues. It is well within the ability of a single admin to monitor mods, or really to handle all flags even on places like .world. I’m the lead mod of 3d printing on dot world. It is one of the larger communities here. Over moderation doesn’t seem to be a problem to me. Indeed, as I laid out in 3d printing, I believe in invisible moderation. I play referee if one is needed, but it is not “my community.” I take no ownership. I’m just the user that is willing to set myself aside and do whatever needs to be done.
We are back at a stage where we need more users as much as possible. That means putting as few impediments in their way as possible and encouraging as many as possible to participate regularly.
Mods on other communities have complained that they’re getting posts with images of CSAM or dead bodies.
Lemmy definitely needs a good new user experience, but tooling to address problems mods are suffering seems worthwhile.
Having said that, I don’t see anything in this proposal that would directly address those issues.
With all due respect, a 3d printing community is going to draw extremely low levels of bullshit.
Other communities are seeing quite a bit of tomfoolery already. Personally, I do not think attracting all internet denizens equally is a sound strategy for healthy long term growth.
You’ve not seen the stuff some people print.
That’s kinda funny. It’s still a barrier to entry though, as a niche, technical hobby. It’s going to get less crap than, say, a news community, which does not require monetary investment and some genuine interest to engage in.
I’m only half joking.
The Lemmy.world admins already censored at least one entire 3d printing community from their server, (fosscad) because it was about open source firearms.
Ah. That’s too bad, I think that’s a worthwhile topic. His hardware is in the Netherlands if I remember right though, so everything has to comply with EU and Dutch law. Or, gone it goes, by necessity. That would need to be hosted on a different server.
deleted by creator
How do you stop it just being a popularity contest?
You are probably thinking about StackExchange, I don’t see anybody saying anything about popularity when talking about Discourse. It’s a matter of doing it like Discourse and not like StackExchange.
deleted by creator
I think an appeal process to punish moderators abusing power would help with that.
Seconded. I caught a BS removal on a certain comm and I just assumed the admins would have been OK with it. Would have appealed it if I had the chance and the admins probably would have taken my side. Right now there’s way too much incentive for mods to abuse their power with little pushback. Sure you could make a thread about it on the instance’s meta page but that would just spark drama and that’s the last thing a good faith user wants to have to deal with.
A private “report community” option that goes straight to the admins (of yours and their instance) would be great step to break the chill that comes from speaking out against an abusive mod/team while also avoiding the drama that comes from callout threads.
How do you imagine such a appeal process would work? If we’re assuming distributed moderation doesn’t work for appeals, you’d have to appoint moderators who have the (potentially absolute) power to decide on appeals. Who watches the watchers?
There has to be a way to federate trust levels otherwise all of this just isn’t applicable to the fediverse. One of the links I posted talks about how to federate trust levels. So the appeal is processed by a user with a higher trust level.
I’m not sure I’d use the phrase “privilege escalation” here, since it has a generally agreed upon meaning. Perhaps something like “gradual access”, “delayed privilege”, or something similar.
I’m not a mod. The complaints I’ve heard from mods have mostly come from image or news communities that are inundated with disturbing images (CSAM, dead bodies). If I were volunteering and I had to look at that shit, I think I’d quit on the spot.
Maybe tooling that addresses those needs would be worthwhile.
Having AGI as moderators would be a futuristic dream come true. However, until that becomes a reality, it’s crucial to consider the well-being of human moderators who are exposed to disturbing content like CSAM and graphic images. I believe it would be important to provide moderators with the ability to decrease their moderation levels to avoid such content.
A system like this rewards frequent shitposting over slower qualityposting. It is also easily gamed by organized bad faith groups. Imagine if this was Reddit and T_D users just gave each other a high trust score, valuing their contributions over more “organic” posts.
Human moderators (and human Admins) who understand context are the only answer. If they’re feeling overworked they need to add mods or stop growing. Big, loosely moderated instances are arguably worse for the overall ecosystem then small, bad faith ones.
A system like this rewards frequent shitposting over slower qualityposting. It is also easily gamed by organized bad faith groups. Imagine if this was Reddit and T_D users just gave each other a high trust score, valuing their contributions over more “organic” posts.
You are just assuming that this would work similarly to Reddit based on karma. I don’t know why you would assume the worst possible implementation just so you can complain about this. If you had read the links, you would know that shitposting wouldn’t help much because what contributes most to Trust Levels in Discourse is reading posts.
I did read the links, and I still strongly feel that no automated mechanical system of weights and measures can outperform humans when it comes to understanding context.
It’s also, as I described, wholly unnecessary on platforms that do not allow themselves grow beyond an ability to monitor themselves.
I did read the links, and I still strongly feel that no automated mechanical system of weights and measures can outperform humans when it comes to understanding context.
But this is not a way to replace humans; it’s just a method to grant users moderation privileges based on their tenure on a platform. Currently, most federated platforms only offer moderator and admin levels of moderation, making setting up an instance tedious due to the time spent managing the report inbox. Automating the assignment of moderation levels would streamline this process, allowing admins to simply adjust the trust level of select users to customize their instance as desired.
Thanks I think I better understand what you’re proposing now. I’m reminded of how on reddit, mods could be added a-la-carte with only specific duties like the ability to add/remove posts, or respond to modmail.
Speaking as a former Reddit moderator myself, the main problem we faced when adding anyone who didn’t have “full control” was that those people were unlikely to feel a strong sense of independence and autonomy to do much of anything. I learned that without a sense of control over the direction of the community there is not much incentive for people to feel responsible for it’s wellbeing. We found it more sustainable to maintain a “smaller” but more dedicated core team, and swap new members in and out as needed. This also made it easier for us to stay on the same page policy-wise.
We were “only” 400K users by time I left, but I could see a system like what you’re proposing working to a degree once a community gets up into the millions.
