We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here.
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
@scottjenson I generally agree with the sentiment here, I'd just add that the appropriate use of CWs should be clearly stated in the server rules, and posts breaking them should be reported to the server's admin to handle, rather than a bunch of people from different servers forming a perhaps well-meaning mob and repeating the same message.
Have you seen this poll, by the way?
https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/113623004004461223
Nicely shows how leading by example works best!
-
@scottjenson I generally agree with the sentiment here, I'd just add that the appropriate use of CWs should be clearly stated in the server rules, and posts breaking them should be reported to the server's admin to handle, rather than a bunch of people from different servers forming a perhaps well-meaning mob and repeating the same message.
Have you seen this poll, by the way?
https://stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/113623004004461223
Nicely shows how leading by example works best!
@stefan I completely agree! If it's part of your server rules then by all means, but it's up to the folks of that server to enforce, not some rando that doesn't like your hashtag.
I'm not saying never use CWs, I'm saying don't lecture people about it.
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
@scottjenson I don't have any data about the usefulness of Content Warnings but I can't think of a use case not already covered by filters.
I rely on filters for content I don't want to see, and I don't need CW to match it. Are there cases where CWs catch what filters don't?
-
@scottjenson I don't have any data about the usefulness of Content Warnings but I can't think of a use case not already covered by filters.
I rely on filters for content I don't want to see, and I don't need CW to match it. Are there cases where CWs catch what filters don't?
@thibaultamartin I don't think it matters as many people never use CWs the "right way" so will never be caught properly.
Btw, I'm not saying we should never use CWs there could be some strong content that a server wants to always be me marked. But that's up to server admins to enforce not randos yelling at newcomers
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
Would like to suggest combining "tone policing" with how we can make it easier for new users to grasp how every instance can set their own "rules" for their users - often in a CoC and/or ToS.
But within limits, as otherwise risk getting defederated.
Some guidelines on making it easy for users to find someones home instance and the rules it has could also be good. Both for instance admins and users.
-
Would like to suggest combining "tone policing" with how we can make it easier for new users to grasp how every instance can set their own "rules" for their users - often in a CoC and/or ToS.
But within limits, as otherwise risk getting defederated.
Some guidelines on making it easy for users to find someones home instance and the rules it has could also be good. Both for instance admins and users.
@tsvenson excellent suggestion
-
I always found CWs to be backwards. How the hell am I supposed to know what is going to set someone off? They should honestly be removed and let readers self-filter.
@blainsmith @scottjenson I don't think it's such a problem, at least I haven't seen it be with the people I follow....
I guess it's a kind gesture to put CW if you know that some people don't want to see/can't see without panic, e.g. spiders.
I don't think such warnings are a bad thing in general. Things get bad if done excessively and we all may draw that line in different places.
Then again I make use of filters a lot to block out posts about politics. I like that I can easily unto filters and read posts anyway.
-
@blainsmith @scottjenson I don't think it's such a problem, at least I haven't seen it be with the people I follow....
I guess it's a kind gesture to put CW if you know that some people don't want to see/can't see without panic, e.g. spiders.
I don't think such warnings are a bad thing in general. Things get bad if done excessively and we all may draw that line in different places. Then again I make use of filters a lot to block out posts about politics. I like that I can easily unto filters and read posts anyway.
@marionline @blainsmith exactly, to each their own. The point isn't to say we shouldn't have CWs only that their use will ALWAYS be sketchy and you shouldn't count on it. I'm just saying people should not harass others into doing it "their way" (of course, you're not saying that!)
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
@scottjenson Arn’t you language and tone policing to try to make your online environment more to your liking? You want to set a community standard of being more chill about content warnings while your opponents want them taken more seriously.
Why not engage in an argument on the merits of the practice of content warnings. Why turn it into a meta conversation about the fate of the platform? You don’t have strong arguments against content warnings so you want to expand the playing field to include “civility” and “the usage of the Fediverse”?
People should advocate for what they believe in, if it makes you feel bad then you should change your behavior not demand they stop pointing it out.
-
@scottjenson Arn’t you language and tone policing to try to make your online environment more to your liking? You want to set a community standard of being more chill about content warnings while your opponents want them taken more seriously.
Why not engage in an argument on the merits of the practice of content warnings. Why turn it into a meta conversation about the fate of the platform? You don’t have strong arguments against content warnings so you want to expand the playing field to include “civility” and “the usage of the Fediverse”?
People should advocate for what they believe in, if it makes you feel bad then you should change your behavior not demand they stop pointing it out.
@kevinhippert Not at all! I'm just asking people to be civil and not harass others. If they don't use CW, it's not your job to "train them". It's the number one reason we've been told that people leave Mastodon, that so many people harass them about "they are. doing Mastodon wrong". I hope we can agree that we don't want to chase people away?
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
I've already had a few randos in my mentions trying to tell me either:
1) It's ok to correct people if done politely
Just because you use polite words doesn't mean it's polite. If you're giving people advice they didn't ask for, you're harassing them.2) My request was a form of tone policing
Asking people to not harass others is not "tone policing", it's basic trust and safety. It's that classic sad defence that "you're intolerant too!" if you call out intolerance.Ummmm, no
-
I've already had a few randos in my mentions trying to tell me either:
1) It's ok to correct people if done politely
Just because you use polite words doesn't mean it's polite. If you're giving people advice they didn't ask for, you're harassing them.2) My request was a form of tone policing
Asking people to not harass others is not "tone policing", it's basic trust and safety. It's that classic sad defence that "you're intolerant too!" if you call out intolerance.Ummmm, no
Normally I wouldn't engage but I feel strongly we need to have this discussion and call out this almost entirely white male issue.
The entire Mastodon team is working really hard to add features to bring in more people, in a safe way. It doesn't do any good if these guys just chase them away!
-
Normally I wouldn't engage but I feel strongly we need to have this discussion and call out this almost entirely white male issue.
The entire Mastodon team is working really hard to add features to bring in more people, in a safe way. It doesn't do any good if these guys just chase them away!
@scottjenson Have you considered this idea?
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
If you read the writing of the people who came up with content warnings as implemented in Mastodon, then you'll know that they somewhat regret implementing them.
Meanwhile, I think Bluesky's labeling approach, for all its faults, largely got things right, which is why AP T&S decided to do a content labeling idea (not that I've had time to write the FEPs for it).
Most use-cases for content warnings today are like one-word keywords for people's filtering to hide. The content warnings approach puts the onus on the publisher to consider every possible way that someone may not want to see something that they post, when really it needs to be a balance of power: some self-labelling of content, some automated, and some opt-in, then people can choose what they do and do not want to see, without suppressing the publisher's voice to people who do want to see their content.
Edit: see the swicg/activitypub-trust-and-safety repo's issues on github for the background and links
-
@scottjenson Have you considered this idea?
@stefan We actually do this on our native apps already.
-
We need to talk more about reducing "tone policing" here. I understand you want people to use content warnings, but guess what? They don't have to! If they don't do it, just unfollow them.
But please, don't harass them. That's what drove away our last big wave.
Do whatever you need to feel safe, but harassing people to your standards doesn't make THEM feel safe. Stop it.
@scottjenson some of us value existing local culture over welcoming "big waves," especially when those in the "big wave" tend to walk in and act like they own the place, like it's empty undiscovered country but for a few pesky savages, etc. Gargron's desire to be BDFL of a big social media fiefdom notwithstanding.
-
@stefan We actually do this on our native apps already.
@scottjenson Ha, yes, just joking about being a bit more forceful with the messaging.
But yes, I do recall this feature, is it being considered for the web interface?
-
@thisismissem Thank you for this. I'd like to know how BlueSky mods have felt about their responsibility in tagging users content. it's always helpful to learn how an existing system work (or doesn't)
-
@scottjenson Ha, yes, just joking about being a bit more forceful with the messaging.
But yes, I do recall this feature, is it being considered for the web interface?
@stefan I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure
-
@scottjenson some of us value existing local culture over welcoming "big waves," especially when those in the "big wave" tend to walk in and act like they own the place, like it's empty undiscovered country but for a few pesky savages, etc. Gargron's desire to be BDFL of a big social media fiefdom notwithstanding.
@deutrino I'll all for you policing your own instance in any way you see fit. I'm just saying it's a lost cause if you want to police the other 10000 instances. Not only doesn't it work, it just pisses people off. It's a lose/lose effort.
