Login
You're viewing the mstdn.social public feed.
  • Nov 17, 2025, 12:54 PM

    @pathunstrom A couple of years ago, I was brought in as a moderator to help de-fascist a community that had practically turned into 4chan, in one of the most fundamentally-abuse-attracting and difficult-to-moderate categories of community (privacy/security-related).

    The policy was set as "no fascists, no alt-right, nothing that looks like it" and people would either get banned immediately (if clearly intentionally abusive) or get a warning otherwise that they were expected to take seriously (doubling down would be grounds for a ban). Every ban was permanent but revocable if someone showed genuine reflection and commitment to do better - this sometimes took minutes, sometimes months or even longer, sometimes never.

    Randos complained for months. "You just call everyone a nazi", "how do you define fascist then", "you're being unreasonable", "the alt right aren't fascists", and so on, and so forth. Without exception, the ones complaining about it the most were the ones who already had a track prior record of being an asshole in different ways. A lot of the bans were the result of brigading attempts from, well, fascists who objected to being pushed out, pretending to be 'new users' and mysteriously immediately knowing about previous bans that happened before they joined.

    It took a while, but they eventually gave up. The result was a pleasant community to be in, unusually pleasant for a privacy/security community. I haven't been around there for quite a while now, but my understanding is that it's still a nice place to this day.

    "No fascists allowed" works, even under the worst conditions, and the "no, seriously, this is not up for debate, the moderator decides" is a critical component of making it work.

    💬 7🔄 202⭐ 9

Replies

  • Nov 17, 2025, 1:53 PM

    @joepie91 @pathunstrom If there's a "decision algorithm" (run by humans or otherwise), they will exploit it - so yeah, "mods decide" is the last word and they should be glad it's a ban and not a bullet

    💬 1🔄 4⭐ 35
  • Nov 17, 2025, 5:22 PM

    @flippac @pathunstrom Yep, that was exactly the rationale behind that policy. And I'd explain the ban at length to other people (as long as they had a track record of reasonably genuine participation), but questioning from the banned person or his buddies would be shut down quickly.

    Prevented a lot of concern trolling while still teaching a lot of other folks about how to recognize dogwhistles etc. - the flipside of that was that it cost a lot of energy initially, it only got easier later as people started explaining it to each other.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • Nov 17, 2025, 2:18 PM

    @joepie91 @pathunstrom
    We are going to need this kind of work in a few years to cleanup the sludge left behind by the folk who are operating the government of the US right now.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 9
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Nov 18, 2025, 5:46 PM

    @joepie91 Key to this or any similar policy is a formal doctrine backing it up, and here I must address the so-called but MISNAMED 'paradox of tolerance'. It is NOT a paradox to be intolerant of intolerance. Polity (people getting along) is a social contract, not a doctrine. Those who violate it lose their right to be defended by it. People confuse this social contract with superficially similar religious doctrines, which are unto themselves.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 8
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 8
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 3
  • Nov 18, 2025, 9:49 PM

    @joepie91 @pathunstrom yknow kinda wish i didn't just outright leave a (a certian vita hacking group, due to issues with the other ones..) id never be able to do this now (honestly i dont know if id be mentally 'able too' either but i digress,)

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1