Posts advocating or “asking about” violence against identifiable real people or groups should be deleted at the admins’ discretion:
[pollid:374]
Posts advocating or “asking about” violation of laws that are actually enforced against middle-class people, other than the above, should be deleted at the admins’ discretion:
This poll, like EY’s original question, conflates two things that don’t obviously belong together. (1) Advocating certain kinds of act. (2) “Asking about” the same kind of act.
I appreciate that in some cases “asking about” might just be lightly-disguised advocacy, or apparent advocacy might just be a particularly vivid way of asking a question. I’m guessing that the quotes around “asking about” are intended to indicate something like the first of these. But what, exactly?
I think in this context, “asking about” might include raising for neutral discussion without drawing moral judgements.
The connection I see between them is that if someone starts neutral discussion about a possible action, actions which would reasonably be classified as advocacy have to be permitted if the discussion is going to progress smoothly. We can’t discuss whether some action is good or bad without letting people put forward arguments that it is good.
He needs an excuse? Recall the original post said, straight up:
In other words, the form of this discussion is not ‘Do you like this?’ - you probably have a different cost function from people who are held responsible for how LW looks as a whole
Is that your true rejection? That is, if this poll were posted to Main, and all readers were encouraged to answer, and the results came back essentially the same, would you then allow the results to influence what kind of policy to adopt? Or are you just sufficiently confident about the need for such a moderation policy that, absent clear negative consequences not previously considered, you’ll implement it anyway?
I don’t mean at all to suggest that the latter answer is inappropriate. Overall I trust your moderating judgment, and you clearly have more experience with and have thought more about LW’s public image than probably anyone. If you decide the strong version of this policy is needed, notwithstanding disagreement from most LW members, I’m happy to give substantial deference to that decision. But does it matter either way whether this post is selectively read?
Not if readers were “encouraged” to answer. If there were some way of knowing the population was representative (i.e. we selected at random and got back responses from everyone selected)… hm, possibly. I know that what people say at local LW gatherings has a stronger influence on me than what I hear online, but that could be for ‘improper’ reasons of face-to-face contact or greater personal familiarity.
I know that what people say at local LW gatherings has a stronger influence on me than what I hear online, but that could be for ‘improper’ reasons of face-to-face contact or greater personal familiarity.
The Bay Area meetup is most definitely not-representative of LW in general. Heck, the Bay Area is an extreme outlier even by California, not to mention US or World, standards.
Posts advocating or “asking about” violence against identifiable real people or groups should be deleted at the admins’ discretion:
[pollid:374]
Posts advocating or “asking about” violation of laws that are actually enforced against middle-class people, other than the above, should be deleted at the admins’ discretion:
[pollid:375]
This poll, like EY’s original question, conflates two things that don’t obviously belong together. (1) Advocating certain kinds of act. (2) “Asking about” the same kind of act.
I appreciate that in some cases “asking about” might just be lightly-disguised advocacy, or apparent advocacy might just be a particularly vivid way of asking a question. I’m guessing that the quotes around “asking about” are intended to indicate something like the first of these. But what, exactly?
I think in this context, “asking about” might include raising for neutral discussion without drawing moral judgements.
The connection I see between them is that if someone starts neutral discussion about a possible action, actions which would reasonably be classified as advocacy have to be permitted if the discussion is going to progress smoothly. We can’t discuss whether some action is good or bad without letting people put forward arguments that it is good.
There’s certainly a connection. I’m not convinced the connection is so intimate that if censoring one is a good idea then so is censoring the other.
...but it’d be nice to have a poll to point at later, to show consensus, and I’d be surprised if people disagreed.
Posts like these are selectively read. Then not everyone votes in the poll. Shrug.
Translation: these polls frequently don’t go the way I want, so I need an excuse to dismiss them.
He needs an excuse? Recall the original post said, straight up:
Is that your true rejection? That is, if this poll were posted to Main, and all readers were encouraged to answer, and the results came back essentially the same, would you then allow the results to influence what kind of policy to adopt? Or are you just sufficiently confident about the need for such a moderation policy that, absent clear negative consequences not previously considered, you’ll implement it anyway?
I don’t mean at all to suggest that the latter answer is inappropriate. Overall I trust your moderating judgment, and you clearly have more experience with and have thought more about LW’s public image than probably anyone. If you decide the strong version of this policy is needed, notwithstanding disagreement from most LW members, I’m happy to give substantial deference to that decision. But does it matter either way whether this post is selectively read?
Not if readers were “encouraged” to answer. If there were some way of knowing the population was representative (i.e. we selected at random and got back responses from everyone selected)… hm, possibly. I know that what people say at local LW gatherings has a stronger influence on me than what I hear online, but that could be for ‘improper’ reasons of face-to-face contact or greater personal familiarity.
The Bay Area meetup is most definitely not-representative of LW in general. Heck, the Bay Area is an extreme outlier even by California, not to mention US or World, standards.