Intuitive gut reaction. If I had an argument to make I would have said so. Any case I make would have been formed from backtracking from my initial feeling, and I’m probably not the only commenter here arguing based on an “ick” or “yay” gut reaction to the idea of censorship. I thought it was worth pointing out.
As I see it, this is sort of like that quote on truth that goes something like “You may as well acknowledge the truth—you’re already dealing with it.”
Censorship was already happening on LessWrong. Now that Eliezer is making an effort to share some of his decision-making process, there is less to fear in a way since you get to have that additional info for guessing what he’s likely to do.
Fear of the unknown can feel a lot worse than fear of the known.
I think you mean the Litany of Gendlin, and I believe some of these rules are being newly implemented, but I could be wrong about that.
He can run his site anyway he wants, and most of the ideas here are reasonable precautions given his values. That doesn’t change the fact that I intuitively don’t like them when I read them, and that gut reaction (or possibly it’s opposite) is probably shared with others here who probably allow it to color their arguments one way or the other. Just something to keep in mind, is all.
I remember that one way to combat status quo bias is re-framing. I am about to read the new deletion policy for the first time, but I am going to consciously frame it as “this is a deletion policy already in place for a site I am considering joining” rather than “this is a change to a deletion policy for a site I have already joined.”
[Goes to read the policy]
In that frame, I would like the deletion policy and it wouldn’t otherwise discourage me from joining the site. I would appreciate that the moderators would be taking moderation seriously, as opposed to some other sites I know of. In particular, the example about academic conferences is a great illustration of the argument.
My only concern is about the broad language used under the sections “Prolific trolls” and “Trollfeeding.” The policy refers to commentators who
been downvoted sufficiently strongly sufficiently many times
as well as
Sufficiently downvoted comments.
Can the policy be amended to quantify those qualitative standards? Or if for practical purposes we can’t quantify those standards, then include an a sentence to emphasize that interpretation of the standard is at the moderator’s individual discretion.
If you could figure that out, that would be helpful.
Intuitive gut reaction. If I had an argument to make I would have said so. Any case I make would have been formed from backtracking from my initial feeling, and I’m probably not the only commenter here arguing based on an “ick” or “yay” gut reaction to the idea of censorship. I thought it was worth pointing out.
As I see it, this is sort of like that quote on truth that goes something like “You may as well acknowledge the truth—you’re already dealing with it.”
Censorship was already happening on LessWrong. Now that Eliezer is making an effort to share some of his decision-making process, there is less to fear in a way since you get to have that additional info for guessing what he’s likely to do.
Fear of the unknown can feel a lot worse than fear of the known.
I think you mean the Litany of Gendlin, and I believe some of these rules are being newly implemented, but I could be wrong about that.
He can run his site anyway he wants, and most of the ideas here are reasonable precautions given his values. That doesn’t change the fact that I intuitively don’t like them when I read them, and that gut reaction (or possibly it’s opposite) is probably shared with others here who probably allow it to color their arguments one way or the other. Just something to keep in mind, is all.
Oh thank you. I kept wondering what that quote was.
Oh, that is a good point.
I was trying to make you feel better.
Status quo bias: I’m reasonably sure that if this policy had been in place from Day 1, very few people would have given it a second thought.
I remember that one way to combat status quo bias is re-framing. I am about to read the new deletion policy for the first time, but I am going to consciously frame it as “this is a deletion policy already in place for a site I am considering joining” rather than “this is a change to a deletion policy for a site I have already joined.”
[Goes to read the policy]
In that frame, I would like the deletion policy and it wouldn’t otherwise discourage me from joining the site. I would appreciate that the moderators would be taking moderation seriously, as opposed to some other sites I know of. In particular, the example about academic conferences is a great illustration of the argument.
My only concern is about the broad language used under the sections “Prolific trolls” and “Trollfeeding.” The policy refers to commentators who
as well as
Can the policy be amended to quantify those qualitative standards? Or if for practical purposes we can’t quantify those standards, then include an a sentence to emphasize that interpretation of the standard is at the moderator’s individual discretion.