My time here has come to an end (2 Viewers)

[KarmaPolice]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

is that just one night though? people can turn in for one or two nights a week

Fair point, and that I don't know. I guess my point would be even if we 4-5x that number, it's still not making up the numbers from people getting info from X, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc..

I do get a lot of my news from X.

I'd guess that's the most common spot now. My impulse is to say it's bad, but it can be curated well. It just takes a surprising amount of effort and it's not the default settings for those sites. Definitely not X's job to deliver good, accurate news to us.

 

[FairWarning]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

is that just one night though? people can turn in for one or two nights a week

Fair point, and that I don't know. I guess my point would be even if we 4-5x that number, it's still not making up the numbers from people getting info from X, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc..

I do get a lot of my news from X.

I'd guess that's the most common spot now. My impulse is to say it's bad, but it can be curated well. It just takes a surprising amount of effort and it's not the default settings for those sites. Definitely not X's job to deliver good, accurate news to us.

I can’t think of a major media outlet that isn’t on X. The community notes help with factchecking also.

 

[Don Quixote]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still not allowed to talk about this?

 

[the moops]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

I understand that what you're referring to is completely different than what most people think of as "student loan forgiveness." Various public-sector jobs have been candidates for loan forgiveness for a long time now, and to my knowledge that's never been especially controversial. But we both know that any thread about student loans is going to be living on borrowed time. Eventually, somebody is going to insist on making a comment about Biden or the supreme court or whatever, and that's that.

 

[the moops]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

I understand that what you're referring to is completely different than what most people think of as "student loan forgiveness." Various public-sector jobs have been candidates for loan forgiveness for a long time now, and to my knowledge that's never been especially controversial. But we both know that any thread about student loans is going to be living on borrowed time. Eventually, somebody is going to insist on making a comment about Biden or the supreme court or whatever, and that's that.

Yea I get it, but the thread hadn't devolved into that slap fight yet. And weirdly the public sector forgiveness was signed into law by W

 

[ProstheticRGK]

Perhaps we should have a "Purge" day where anything goes. A single 24 hour period to let everyone get it all out of their systems. At the end of the 24 hour period, delete it all and back to the regular rules.

Haha, that would be awesome. Make sure it's on a Friday. I'll notify Offdee.

Lol. We'd probably get Joe arrested.

no we wouldnt we would all act like we would and then most of the stuff posted would be the underwear section from the 1982 sears catalog because we are all as old as dirt and boring as hell and thats the truth take that the bank bromigo

There's an ad on youtube now, from Kohl's. Yeah... Kohl's, where my mom used to bargain shop. Lady, probably 40ish, modelling an underwear and bra set. She is quite comely. I have 2 reactions watching it: 1. That shouldn't be a random commercial on your tube. Avert yer eyes, sinner. 2. It moved.

I am officially old, now.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

I understand that what you're referring to is completely different than what most people think of as "student loan forgiveness." Various public-sector jobs have been candidates for loan forgiveness for a long time now, and to my knowledge that's never been especially controversial. But we both know that any thread about student loans is going to be living on borrowed time. Eventually, somebody is going to insist on making a comment about Biden or the supreme court or whatever, and that's that.

Yea I get it, but the thread hadn't devolved into that slap fight yet. And weirdly the public sector forgiveness was signed into law by W

Who is "W"?

 

[-fish-]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

I understand that what you're referring to is completely different than what most people think of as "student loan forgiveness." Various public-sector jobs have been candidates for loan forgiveness for a long time now, and to my knowledge that's never been especially controversial. But we both know that any thread about student loans is going to be living on borrowed time. Eventually, somebody is going to insist on making a comment about Biden or the supreme court or whatever, and that's that.

Yea I get it, but the thread hadn't devolved into that slap fight yet. And weirdly the public sector forgiveness was signed into law by W

Who is "W"?

"W" is a common way to refer to George W Bush to avoid confusion with George H Bush

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

I understand that what you're referring to is completely different than what most people think of as "student loan forgiveness." Various public-sector jobs have been candidates for loan forgiveness for a long time now, and to my knowledge that's never been especially controversial. But we both know that any thread about student loans is going to be living on borrowed time. Eventually, somebody is going to insist on making a comment about Biden or the supreme court or whatever, and that's that.

Yea I get it, but the thread hadn't devolved into that slap fight yet. And weirdly the public sector forgiveness was signed into law by W

Who is "W"?

"W" is a common way to refer to George W Bush to avoid confusion with George H Bush

Hence Bush 41 and Bush 43. And it's George H W Bush. Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

 

[Tecumseh]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

I understand that what you're referring to is completely different than what most people think of as "student loan forgiveness." Various public-sector jobs have been candidates for loan forgiveness for a long time now, and to my knowledge that's never been especially controversial. But we both know that any thread about student loans is going to be living on borrowed time. Eventually, somebody is going to insist on making a comment about Biden or the supreme court or whatever, and that's that.

Yea I get it, but the thread hadn't devolved into that slap fight yet. And weirdly the public sector forgiveness was signed into law by W

Who is "W"?

"W" is a common way to refer to George W Bush to avoid confusion with George H Bush

Hence Bush 41 and Bush 43. And it's George H W Bush. Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

You never saw the “W The President” stickers when he was running? I feel like they were everywhere.

 

[Doug B]

Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

Do you recall the Oliver Stone movie? Underrated Josh Brolin role as Bush 43.

W. (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[the moops]

Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

Do you recall the Oliver Stone movie? Underrated John Brolin role as Bush 43.

W. (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I thought everyone referred to him as W

 

[Doug B]

Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

Do you recall the Oliver Stone movie? Underrated John Brolin role as Bush 43.

W. (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I thought everyone referred to him as W

Some people spell it out as “Dubya” with tongue in cheek.

 

[mr. furley]

Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

Do you recall the Oliver Stone movie? Underrated John Brolin role as Bush 43.

W. (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I thought everyone referred to him as W

in fact i can't remember the last time i heard him referred to as anything but W

 

[northern exposure]

There are also the concepts of in-thread moderator notes and formal public warnings, which aren’t applied here.

Again, we do that here. People are asked to be more cool regularly here.

As well as people are sent private warnings often.

Not going to lie, a little discouraging that we already do all these things that apparently aren't noticed.

I thought about replying to this post yesterday and chickened out. I'm going to reply today and hope you take it in the spirit I intended which is to be helpful, not criticize you.
I don't know how else to put it, so I'll be blunt. You are coming across as defensive with your last 3 posts in this thread.
You are replying to two different posters who are complimenting another message board's methods of moderation by stating "we already do that here". You are saying you are discouraged because you are already doing the recommended things and they aren't being noticed.

Perhaps your intentions are not showing up as results. Or in other words, you think you’re sending out a message but it is being perceived in a different way.

If I was you, I would be approaching these posters with "I thought we were doing that already because we do this. Do you see it differently? If so, why?"

You are obviously free to do as you like. I think it might be worthwhile to engage with these well regarded posters.
You might gain some valuable knowledge.

 

[krista4]

I hesitate to post this, because it's an opinion piece and not "fact," and disagreement with the analysis will be natural. And I surely don't need more rolling smileys targeted in my direction. But I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

 

[fatness]

I just want to mention that the Chicago Bears suck and I hate them.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

Maybe it's because I live in Texas. I've never heard Bush 43 referred to that way before.

Do you recall the Oliver Stone movie? Underrated Josh Brolin role as Bush 43.

W. (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I just ignore Oliver Stone. And I never saw the stickers.

Sorry.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I just want to mention that the Chicago Bears suck and I hate them.

Could be a Bears or Packers fan. I really have no idea at this point.

 

[Snoopy]

I just want to mention that the Chicago Bears suck and I hate them.

Could be a Bears or Packers fan. I really have no idea at this point.

A Packers fan would say the Bears still suck.

 

[Zeppelin]

A Packers fan would say the Bears still suck.

A Lions fan would say both the Packers and Bears suck.

 

[FBG Moderator]

I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.

I guess still allowed to talk about this?

I mean I started a thread about my student loans getting forgiven because I work in the non profit world and that thread got nuked for some reason with no explanation. I never followed up, cause it's not really worth it, but maybe I should have.

@FBG Moderator what happened to that thread?

That thread turned sharply political and away from the original intent and lots of posts had to be deleted and then eventually the whole thread was removed. People don't see the deleted posts of course.

 

[Zeppelin]

I hesitate to post this, because it's an opinion piece and not "fact," and disagreement with the analysis will be natural. And I surely don't need more rolling smileys targeted in my direction. But I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

One of the best posts ever.

 

[Juxtatarot]

The main “problem” with the FFA is that there aren’t many new posters. The technological limitations of the board play into that. It’s old-fashioned to younger people. It’s dying a slow death. Moderation policies could slow or hasten that death, but it’s inevitable.

Besides that, it makes questionable business sense. It seems to be more of a plaything for Joe than something that attracts and maintains revenue-generating customers. Financially speaking, it just doesn’t make sense to invest a lot of money to try to grow it.

None of this is a criticism. It’s just the way it is.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I hesitate to post this, because it's an opinion piece and not "fact," and disagreement with the analysis will be natural. And I surely don't need more rolling smileys targeted in my direction. But I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Great post and ideas. As far as #2, I'd be interested how that is handled with all the tribalism and immaturity we saw in the PSF (assuming that is just as common on Reddit). It would be an interesting balance to try to strike between volunteer moderation and trying to get people you don't like out of the space.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I thought about replying to this post yesterday and chickened out. I'm going to reply today and hope you take it in the spirit I intended which is to be helpful, not criticize you.
I don't know how else to put it, so I'll be blunt. You are coming across as defensive with your last 3 posts in this thread.
You are replying to two different posters who are complimenting another message board's methods of moderation by stating "we already do that here". You are saying you are discouraged because you are already doing the recommended things and they aren't being noticed.

Perhaps your intentions are not showing up as results. Or in other words, you think you’re sending out a message but it is being perceived in a different way.

If I was you, I would be approaching these posters with "I thought we were doing that already because we do this. Do you see it differently? If so, why?"

Thank you. I hope you, and others, will always be comfortable with feedback. And me, of all people, are of course open to criticism. That's just feedback. And especially when it's done like you did here obviously being constructive. That kind of feedback is not just ok, but necessary. All feedback is a gift.

Looking back, I can see how my posts could be seen as unkind or defensive. I apologize.

I get discouraged/frustrated when it feels like something I'm trying super hard with isn't noticed. But you're right, my frustration should be channeled to something more kind and asking for more clarity. And my discouragement/frustration is no excuse.

"Perhaps your intentions are not showing up as results. Or in other words, you think you’re sending out a message but it is being perceived in a different way". That's absolutely the case here. But again, if my actions aren't being perceived the way I intended, and they're obviously not, that's on me to communicate more clearly.

Thanks for the feedback. I definitely would like to learn more on this and will continue to try and do that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

 

[Scoresman]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

I've always wondered why you didn't go with more volunteer mods. You've got some long standing trustworthy folks here. It could alleviate some of the burden of moderating the boards yourself.

I might be wrong, but I always assumed the lack of board features, like being able to post photos and stuff like that, was because it requires more moderating which doesn't make business sense. But with volunteer mods, seems to me you can have all the nice shiny things

 

[Joe Bryant]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

I've always wondered why you didn't go with more volunteer mods. You've got some long standing trustworthy folks here. It could alleviate some of the burden of moderating the boards yourself.

I might be wrong, but I always assumed the lack of board features, like being able to post photos and stuff like that, was because it requires more moderating which doesn't make business sense. But with volunteer mods, seems to me you can have all the nice shiny things

Thanks @Scoresman as that's a fair question. We’ve had volunteer moderators in the past, and that was mostly disastrous. Especially when using an actual screen name as I know some forums do. I understand it seems to work in other forums but I'm just saying in my personal experience, it was a disaster for us.

We stopped after someone threatened the moderator using his screen name. They were able to find out who he was and where he worked. Then contacted his employer and threatened him there at his real job because the poster felt the board was not fairly moderated. That was a while back.

I said way back then I didn’t want to put our people into that

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

I understand that’s part of the job for me and one I have accepted. But I don’t feel good asking others to do that.

I think the big thing I worry about is whether it’s ugly stuff on the forums, misunderstanding my intent when I write something (again, my fault), or just private messages that go poorly and are misunderstood; there’s overall just a ton of negative from the forum for me.

And absolutely, there are also of course good things. And please don’t take this as a request for people to mention good things. I know there are positives from the forum. This isn't a cry for compliments.

I’m just saying for me personally, and specifically on days like yesterday and today, the forums, publicly and privately are way more negative than positive for me.

And yes, while still on the negative side, that balance is better for me after eliminating the political forum. But that clearly was not sustainable.

For sure, they’re a significant loss financially. A forum of this size is fairly expensive to host where the speed will be good and the platform reliable. We have always passed up on trying to make any money from the forum to offset the loss with advertisements on the forum, as I know that would be another unpopular thing we do. I’ve never felt I had the energy to fight that battle as I know the user experience is better without ads and we try to make the experience as good as we can.

I know for a fact a few people buy a subscription each year just because of the forums. But I also know for a fact we lose paying customers every year, because they were for some reason, unhappy with their experience on the forums.

The financial plus and minus there probably cancel each other out. So it really just becomes the loss is the financial expense to host them, plus the mental or whatever we want to call it cost and negatives for me.

Again, I know that sounds like whining and fishing for compliments, and that’s not what I mean at all. I know there are plenty of folks who think we do a good job here. I’m just trying to be clear and explain my position on it.

 

[stbugs]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

You did it to yourself, Sacamano. You just think you run amok in here, galivanting around with your anti-lettuce rhetoric, spewing lies and distortions? I won't stand for it. Not now, not ever.

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous.

Wait, I thought you guys were the same person.

 

[the moops]

We stopped after someone threatened the moderator using his screen name. They were able to find out who he was and where he worked. Then contacted his employer and threatened him there at his real job because the poster felt the board was not fairly moderated. That was a while back.

Holy hell. So ridiculous

 

[FarFromHome]

We stopped after someone threatened the moderator using his screen name. They were able to find out who he was and where he worked. Then contacted his employer and threatened him there at his real job because the poster felt the board was not fairly moderated. That was a while back.

Holy hell. So ridiculous

My goodness. What the heck is wrong with people.

 

[Ghost Rider]

We stopped after someone threatened the moderator using his screen name. They were able to find out who he was and where he worked. Then contacted his employer and threatened him there at his real job because the poster felt the board was not fairly moderated. That was a while back.

Holy hell. So ridiculous

My goodness. What the heck is wrong with people.

Yeah, to say that is ridiculous would be underselling it big time.

I am sure we all have quibbles about this or that, but ultimately Joe and his team do a good job here, which I think most realize even if it is not often said.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It probably would have made things worse, but I do wonder what the outcome would have been if the report function was public.

On another site, some hoser decided to track me from topic to topic. I suspect something of that sort would be one of the outcomes.

Very fair point.

A huge annoyance to me is the constant whining and finger pointing about who ratted out who - things like that. As you hinted, outcome would be possible and overpower the +s.

Understood. But the report feature is key to helping the forum stay on track. We get a ton of really helpful things from spam reports to bot reports to when people do over a line and such. Those are always best to be private. If someone reports too much or reports things that aren't really over the line, the moderators will let them know.

I can't imagine someone *cough* @General Malaise *cough* reporting things that aren't really over the line. Who would do such a ridiculous thing?

You did it to yourself, Sacamano. You just think you run amok in here, galivanting around with your anti-lettuce rhetoric, spewing lies and distortions? I won't stand for it. Not now, not ever.

That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous.

Wait, I thought you guys were the same person.

Reported.

Words hurt.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

These comments make me want to vomit. What the hell is the matter with us as a species that we would say things like that to another human being?

I didn't quote your other point about a moderator being contacted at his place of business, but I remember when it happened here (I assume we're talking about the same event - if not, even more shame on us).

 

[Joe Bryant]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

These comments make me want to vomit. What the hell is the matter with us as a species that we would say things like that to another human being?

I didn't quote your other point about a moderator being contacted at his place of business, but I remember when it happened here (I assume we're talking about the same event - if not, even more shame on us).

Thanks GB. It's an odd world.

 

[northern exposure]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

I've always wondered why you didn't go with more volunteer mods. You've got some long standing trustworthy folks here. It could alleviate some of the burden of moderating the boards yourself.

I might be wrong, but I always assumed the lack of board features, like being able to post photos and stuff like that, was because it requires more moderating which doesn't make business sense. But with volunteer mods, seems to me you can have all the nice shiny things

Thanks @Scoresman as that's a fair question. We’ve had volunteer moderators in the past, and that was mostly disastrous. Especially when using an actual screen name as I know some forums do. I understand it seems to work in other forums but I'm just saying in my personal experience, it was a disaster for us.

We stopped after someone threatened the moderator using his screen name. They were able to find out who he was and where he worked. Then contacted his employer and threatened him there at his real job because the poster felt the board was not fairly moderated. That was a while back.

I said way back then I didn’t want to put our people into that

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

I understand that’s part of the job for me and one I have accepted. But I don’t feel good asking others to do that.

I think the big thing I worry about is whether it’s ugly stuff on the forums, misunderstanding my intent when I write something (again, my fault), or just private messages that go poorly and are misunderstood; there’s overall just a ton of negative from the forum for me.

And absolutely, there are also of course good things. And please don’t take this as a request for people to mention good things. I know there are positives from the forum. This isn't a cry for compliments.

I’m just saying for me personally, and specifically on days like yesterday and today, the forums, publicly and privately are way more negative than positive for me.

And yes, while still on the negative side, that balance is better for me after eliminating the political forum. But that clearly was not sustainable.

For sure, they’re a significant loss financially. A forum of this size is fairly expensive to host where the speed will be good and the platform reliable. We have always passed up on trying to make any money from the forum to offset the loss with advertisements on the forum, as I know that would be another unpopular thing we do. I’ve never felt I had the energy to fight that battle as I know the user experience is better without ads and we try to make the experience as good as we can.

I know for a fact a few people buy a subscription each year just because of the forums. But I also know for a fact we lose paying customers every year, because they were for some reason, unhappy with their experience on the forums.

The financial plus and minus there probably cancel each other out. So it really just becomes the loss is the financial expense to host them, plus the mental or whatever we want to call it cost and negatives for me.

Again, I know that sounds like whining and fishing for compliments, and that’s not what I mean at all. I know there are plenty of folks who think we do a good job here. I’m just trying to be clear and explain my position on it.

I don't post much on these forums. I've found that once I up my activity the chances of "uncool" behavior towards me increased substantially. So, I pick my spots and post in what seem to be "safer" threads.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us.
I can honestly say if one of those despicable things happened to me and I was in your shoes, I would have turned out the lights and shut this place down.
I'm sorry you had to endure any of those things.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

These comments make me want to vomit. What the hell is the matter with us as a species that we would say things like that to another human being?

I didn't quote your other point about a moderator being contacted at his place of business, but I remember when it happened here (I assume we're talking about the same event - if not, even more shame on us).

Seriously.

Assume it's !. Otherwise, yeah.

Notice nobody ever screws with Rude. Better to be a fakemod.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

I've always wondered why you didn't go with more volunteer mods. You've got some long standing trustworthy folks here. It could alleviate some of the burden of moderating the boards yourself.

I might be wrong, but I always assumed the lack of board features, like being able to post photos and stuff like that, was because it requires more moderating which doesn't make business sense. But with volunteer mods, seems to me you can have all the nice shiny things

Thanks @Scoresman as that's a fair question. We’ve had volunteer moderators in the past, and that was mostly disastrous. Especially when using an actual screen name as I know some forums do. I understand it seems to work in other forums but I'm just saying in my personal experience, it was a disaster for us.

We stopped after someone threatened the moderator using his screen name. They were able to find out who he was and where he worked. Then contacted his employer and threatened him there at his real job because the poster felt the board was not fairly moderated. That was a while back.

I said way back then I didn’t want to put our people into that

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

I understand that’s part of the job for me and one I have accepted. But I don’t feel good asking others to do that.

I think the big thing I worry about is whether it’s ugly stuff on the forums, misunderstanding my intent when I write something (again, my fault), or just private messages that go poorly and are misunderstood; there’s overall just a ton of negative from the forum for me.

And absolutely, there are also of course good things. And please don’t take this as a request for people to mention good things. I know there are positives from the forum. This isn't a cry for compliments.

I’m just saying for me personally, and specifically on days like yesterday and today, the forums, publicly and privately are way more negative than positive for me.

And yes, while still on the negative side, that balance is better for me after eliminating the political forum. But that clearly was not sustainable.

For sure, they’re a significant loss financially. A forum of this size is fairly expensive to host where the speed will be good and the platform reliable. We have always passed up on trying to make any money from the forum to offset the loss with advertisements on the forum, as I know that would be another unpopular thing we do. I’ve never felt I had the energy to fight that battle as I know the user experience is better without ads and we try to make the experience as good as we can.

I know for a fact a few people buy a subscription each year just because of the forums. But I also know for a fact we lose paying customers every year, because they were for some reason, unhappy with their experience on the forums.

The financial plus and minus there probably cancel each other out. So it really just becomes the loss is the financial expense to host them, plus the mental or whatever we want to call it cost and negatives for me.

Again, I know that sounds like whining and fishing for compliments, and that’s not what I mean at all. I know there are plenty of folks who think we do a good job here. I’m just trying to be clear and explain my position on it.

Nah, f that. This should be a pinned post, IMO. People need to be reminded what kinds of posts and messages you have received. I couldn't believe that people were threatening you, your family, or other posters at work over this stuff. Again, I fall back on my post upthread - this isn't stupid teens, this is fully grown adults doing this. Over a message board. Sheesh.

 

[stbugs]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

These comments make me want to vomit. What the hell is the matter with us as a species that we would say things like that to another human being?

I didn't quote your other point about a moderator being contacted at his place of business, but I remember when it happened here (I assume we're talking about the same event - if not, even more shame on us).

Thanks GB. It's an odd world.

Yeah, it’s sad sometimes. I mean I’m still pissed about feeling cheap tipping 20%, but damn I can’t imagine I’d ever say or do anything like that until you say 40% is normal.

 

[mr. furley]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

These comments make me want to vomit. What the hell is the matter with us as a species that we would say things like that to another human being?

I didn't quote your other point about a moderator being contacted at his place of business, but I remember when it happened here (I assume we're talking about the same event - if not, even more shame on us).

Seriously.

Assume it's !. Otherwise, yeah.

Notice nobody ever screws with Rude. Better to be a fakemod.

RIP @Aaron Rudnicki

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

The main “problem” with the FFA is that there aren’t many new posters. The technological limitations of the board play into that. It’s old-fashioned to younger people. It’s dying a slow death. Moderation policies could slow or hasten that death, but it’s inevitable.

Besides that, it makes questionable business sense. It seems to be more of a plaything for Joe than something that attracts and maintains revenue-generating customers. Financially speaking, it just doesn’t make sense to invest a lot of money to try to grow it.

None of this is a criticism. It’s just the way it is.

On the other hand, vinyl is making a comeback.

And for no good reason, 8-tracks.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

And absolutely, there are also of course good things. And please don’t take this as a request for people to mention good things. I know there are positives from the forum. This isn't a cry for compliments.

But they should absolutely be a part of this. Doing a thankless job without thanks is just not acceptable.

So, thanks.

 

[mr. furley]

The main “problem” with the FFA is that there aren’t many new posters. The technological limitations of the board play into that. It’s old-fashioned to younger people. It’s dying a slow death. Moderation policies could slow or hasten that death, but it’s inevitable.

Besides that, it makes questionable business sense. It seems to be more of a plaything for Joe than something that attracts and maintains revenue-generating customers. Financially speaking, it just doesn’t make sense to invest a lot of money to try to grow it.

None of this is a criticism. It’s just the way it is.

On the other hand, vinyl is making a comeback.

And for no good reason, 8-tracks.

local record shop posted this week that they had shelves full of laser discs on sale for $1 a piece. some guy came in and bought all of them. hundreds of them.

 

[Ilov80s]

The main “problem” with the FFA is that there aren’t many new posters. The technological limitations of the board play into that. It’s old-fashioned to younger people. It’s dying a slow death. Moderation policies could slow or hasten that death, but it’s inevitable.

Besides that, it makes questionable business sense. It seems to be more of a plaything for Joe than something that attracts and maintains revenue-generating customers. Financially speaking, it just doesn’t make sense to invest a lot of money to try to grow it.

None of this is a criticism. It’s just the way it is.

On the other hand, vinyl is making a comeback.

And for no good reason, 8-tracks.

local record shop posted this week that they had shelves full of laser discs on sale for $1 a piece. some guy came in and bought all of them. hundreds of them.

There is for a sure a small but strong community for blu ray and 4k discs...not that I know anyone who has spent several grand on that since lockdown.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

Wait, not to hijack, but did Joe just tip his hand that an FBG IPO is incoming?!!

 

[mr. furley]

I thought this NYT analysis of how Reddit went from "toxic space" to an incredibly successful IPO this week was very interesting on the topic of content moderation. I'm gifting the article so that everyone can access without a subscription.

A short synopsis of the three steps highlighted in the article (all of these are quotes from the article; my commentary is in brackets):

1. First, the company took aim at bad spaces, rather than bad individuals or bad posts. [Note that this might be akin to this forum getting rid of the PSF.]
2. The second good decision Reddit made, when it came to content moderation, was to empower an army of volunteer moderators, rather than trying to do it all itself. [Suggested here previously.]
3. Finally, Reddit policed behavior rather than morality, and it did so without worrying too much about being seen as capricious or biased. ... Reddit focused on getting rid of users who were making things worse for other users, regardless of their politics. [I think this has been the theory here, too, to the extent any one is "gotten rid of," but many disagree and think there is "bias." Also I feel like this one is a little contradictory to #1, but it's all explained better in the full article]

Thank you. That's super interesting and helpful. I've recently developed relationships with some Reddit moderators and will talk with them on this article as I'd love to hear their perspective on it too.

It's interesting as it's my understanding they've always had a ton of volunteer moderators. Both when it was ugly and now that it seems to be much better. I'd like to learn more about the changes there.

Wait, not to hijack, but did Joe just tip his hand that an FBG IPO is incoming?!!

little surprised PFF hasn't tried a hostile takeover

 

[shuke]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

I really hope these people are not active posters. This is disgusting.

 

[rockaction]

Everyone knows moderating is a thankless job. But I’m not sure most really understand the full picture. It’s one thing for people to message me, they'd like to “slit my throat” or warn me I better hope “I don't leave my children unattended” or message me asking if “trying to recommend a good taxidermist” replying to the news my mother had died. All unfortunately real things that have happened here.

I’ve heard you mention these things before and it just sickens me to hear. Nothing I could say would do much good because they’re already heard statements and somebody deliberately said them. But I feel like lodging a public objection to anti-social and debased sentiments like these is important. Sorry you had to hear that, Joe. As if grief weren’t enough to deal with. It’s almost unspeakable, and we don’t accept that behavior from anybody nor think it’s in the realm of acceptability.