Moderation regarding covid-19

Anything about use of this forum : NOT about cycling
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by Oldjohnw »

This wasn’t about taking offence. It was about someone talking dangerous drivel.
John
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1513
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by admin »

There are no guidelines for posting on specific subjects, like COVID-19, because to write such guidelines would be pretty-much impossible. Enforcing any written guidelines would become quickly bogged down in legalistic arguments about what the guidelines actually mean. Try asking Twitter or Facebook about this sort of thing!

This is a forum for friendly discussion of cycling, with a message board for forum members to have more general chat without needing to go elsewhere.

The moderators' job is to keep the place friendly and useful. That's all.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by mjr »

Pebble wrote:Personally I think the anti-vaxers are mad, but they should have a right to spout their nonsense - slippery slope moderating stuff out that we don't agree with.

I don't think they should be allowed to spout nonsense because they will not admit it is nonsense and it's very annoying to have to check and challenge all the lies. It's far easier to post lies than to explain why they are lies. They should only be allowed to post stuff that they can back up with evidence.

Raising questions about who should be vaccinated, when and why is OK, but posting dangerous "alternative facts" that do stuff like equate ethyl and methyl compounds should be banned because it is false and may mislead people into effectively killing themselves, not merely that we don't agree with it.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1513
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by admin »

horizon wrote:1. Please can a moderator point to a current list of moderators so we know who is who.


When you're logged in you can see the administrators and moderators by clicking "The team" link at the bottom of any page.

horizon wrote:Ideally, IMV, the moderators should have two identities so that we know which role they are posting in, personal or moderator (it isn't always clear). As I understood it, admin was replying to my OP on behalf of the moderator team but this wasn't the case.


What is the difference? We post as people, we might also have a role.

horizon wrote:Some topics are restricted in terms of what can be written. It would be helpful to know on such threads that restriction is in place and that one can post accordingly. I don't have a problem with this provided that it is made clear.


Restrictions on posting apply to the entire Forum, for all topics. We can't predict what the next controversial topic might be, nor what people's future posts might say.

horizon wrote:Some entire topics are probably not suitable for the forum (mainly ethical, adult and moral ones that have little connection to cycling). Perhaps this could be pointed out in the guidelines. If someone wanted to start such a thread but was unsure, then a request to the the moderators could be made.


I don't see that listing a non-exhaustive list of "not suitable" topics would get us anywhere. If a topic isn't suitable, don't post about it. If you see an unsuitable post, report it to the moderators.

horizon wrote:I would like to see the term "moderation" only be used for action in regard to how something is expressed (e.g. politeness, swearing). I would like to see a different term used for moderation in regard to what view is being put forward. I would suggest "restricted" (I thought of "edited" or "censored" but neither of these seems quite right).


We don't have a list of "not allowed" topics. Such a list would be infinitely long, and useless because people know which topics are not suitable for a public forum.

horizon wrote:I think it would be very helpful if the moderators could clarify the relationship between the forum and CUK in regard to views expressed on the forum. This would save some confusion and wasted effort and indeed, on occasion, indignation. I accept that CUK have a right to regulate the forum, but it would be a mark of respect to forum members if they laid out their position clearly.


Views expressed on the Forum are those of the people posting. Cycling UK do not actively regulate the Forum, we have volunteer moderators who do that. Cycling UK do sometimes become involved, but very rarely.

horizon wrote:Unwittingly or not, CUK has established a resource of great value (and pleasure) for many people (though who it now belongs to is a moot point!). It must surely be worthwhile therefore not only to protect and regulate it but also to make that regulation clear. It has been said that one of England's greatest contributions to the world was the F.A. rulebook: perhaps the world of cycling could benefit in the same way!


Technically-speaking, I suppose Cycling UK "own" the Forum in the sense that they fund it and have their name associated with it. They could certainly ask me to shut it down, or run it in a specific way. But they prefer to keep a "hands-off" approach, and this has worked very well for many years.

Technically-speaking, I think individual posts "belong" to the people who posted them. Although you might be able to argue that the comments are in the public domain. The software is open-source, and is not "owned" by anyone.

I don't think it's possible to write a Rule Book for online discussions. Twitter and Facebook might have some views on this.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1513
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by admin »

mjr wrote:I don't think they should be allowed to spout nonsense because they will not admit it is nonsense and it's very annoying to have to check and challenge all the lies. It's far easier to post lies than to explain why they are lies. They should only be allowed to post stuff that they can back up with evidence.


I quite agree, but who decides what is "nonsense"?

How could the Forum software enforce that every post is backed up with suitable evidence?

mjr wrote:Raising questions about who should be vaccinated, when and why is OK, but posting dangerous "alternative facts" that do stuff like equate ethyl and methyl compounds should be banned because it is false and may mislead people into effectively killing themselves, not merely that we don't agree with it.


If you see any posts that appear to be dangerously misleading, report them to the moderators.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by horizon »

admin wrote:
Views expressed on the Forum are those of the people posting. Cycling UK do not actively regulate the Forum, we have volunteer moderators who do that. Cycling UK do sometimes become involved, but very rarely.



Thank you for that, and your other replies. This is the clarification I was looking for and the matter, as far as I am concerned, is now closed.

Thank you again.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by Tangled Metal »

Part of my cynical n nature wonders whether the op or others now have the information necessary to at some point in n the future have an argument I mean discussion about a moderated post at some point in the future.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1513
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by admin »

Discussion is Good :)
Psamathe
Posts: 17618
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by Psamathe »

Jdsk wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Probably this thread refers to a new requirement that all posts support Government "public health messaging" https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=142212&start=1110#p1578939 i.e. posts cannot raise any information that might raise questions about Government policy regarding Covid public health policy.

I don't think that is a requirement.

I don't see any sign of rational discussion being unwelcome, inhibited, or prevented. Or anything similar for information or questions.

Repeated unevidenced, unattributed smears, hints and innuendo that create fear, uncertainty and doubt and are dangerous to public health are a completely different matter. And things that aren't true should of course be identified as such.

Jonathan

The new rules clearly states "or any other undoing of public health messaging".

Ian
DevonDamo
Posts: 1035
Joined: 24 May 2011, 1:42am

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by DevonDamo »

Moderating profanities/threats/bad-manners/etc is easy. Moderating for misinformation is incredibly tricky. However, it's the latter which is all-important now that misinformation has been weaponised. Examples:
    2016 US election. Russian was proved to be behind 'bots' flooding the media with fake stories.
    Brexit referendum. Massive increase in 'bots' linked both to Russia and far-right groups pumping out factual misinformation.
    Covid19 pandemic. Social media is awash with both deliberate lies (Huawei/5G conspiracies, Bill Gates conspiracies, fake 'cures' such as drinking hot water etc.) and 'persistent' misinformation (e.g. the statistics are skewed to over-report deaths, it's no worse than the flu, the vaccine has not passed all safety tests and is unsafe etc.)
Some of this stuff is just down to trolls - i.e. fools who take pleasure in spreading false rumours for the sake of it. However, the vast majority comes from three major sources:
    State actors. E.g. Russia, China and co. engineering what goes on in Western democracies to produce the most favourable global political environment for them.
    'Culture wars.' This is where huge swathes of the electorate can be convinced by a constant whispering campaign that totally disparate issues are part of one big overarching battle. For example, the Venn diagram of pro-gun lobbyists and climate change-sceptics will be tending towards a circle, whereas the two are completely unrelated. This tactic makes it very easy to get the public to close their ears to actual evidence and make decisions based on who they think is on 'their' team.
    'The playbook.' This is where big industry has learned that the deliberate spread of misinformation can be more powerful than facts and experts. The best description of this is given in the recent Radio 4 series 'how they made us doubt everything' which describes how the tobacco industry and big oil developed this 'playbook' to manipulate public opinion to defend themselves against anti-smoking, anti-climate change regulation.
The UK Govt have acknowledged the above and have been working with the big social media players to try and tackle this with respect to Covid19 misinformation. But in short - it's unfair to expect the moderators on a small cycling forum to have the answer. In my view, it is good to have debate, but it's also important that 'persistent' misinformation be shut down. One test of what's 'persistent' could be whether a claim keeps resurfacing despite having previously failed to address objective evidence which debunks it. At this point, I'd say the moderators should be allowed to say 'either address the contrary evidence or future posts gets deleted.'
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4657
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by PDQ Mobile »

Well I haven't seen the extreme positions and theories you describe on here.
There are a couple who hold positions and views against the "grain" but they haven't perpetrated any propaganda, just given a personal position.

In defending them I made the error of referring to an earlier vaccine scandal and got hammered for it.
The context however was not that there was any truth in that scandal but rather that I understood that some people could be nervous of vaccination.
Otherwise my position had just been about the personal right to decide.
I am not anti vacc, indeed my turn is about to come.
[text removed by moderator]
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20697
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by Vorpal »

The users espousing the most extreme conspiracy theory stuff about covid were banned, and the material removed from the public forum.

Moderating misinformation *is* difficult, and it's difficult to know when to draw a line between someone expressing doubts or a personal opinion and distributing misinformation.

But it also depends on the potential to harm. It's one thing to allow a thread to go on for months about whether the earth is flat, and quite another about whether covid is a hoax.

Moderators are only human, we may make different judgements from one another, and we may make mistakes. But we do our best to be objective and keep the forum a friendly place for discussion, mostly about what brought us all here in the first place; pedal cycles and related interests.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
ncutler
Moderator
Posts: 1471
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 5:29pm
Location: Forest of Bowland Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Moderation regarding covid-19

Post by ncutler »

You might like to have a look this essay on "How to have better online arguments":
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... s-conflict
No pasaran
Post Reply