Right, fediverse, let me know what you think.

[kaifi@pitha.social]

@aral @raphv Yes, suspending is better than just deleting the post. Makes the Nazi "feel" the impact of doing his shenanigans.

[zleap@techhub.social]

@aral

I think we have seen with mainstream social media, posts of an illegal nature, racism, antisemitism and 'trends' some of which are dangerous, so moderators need now need to protect users from certain content, on the other hand, having this content on there gives a chance to challenge the views presented, something we are good at here.

If the law is broken, then evidence needs to also be preserved. If there is extreme content then just deleting it, won't stop it being posted again in the future, the authorities and society need help to tackle these processes at the source.

Education is still the key to this, and education starts at home with the parents / .
legal guardians.

[montgomerygator@fouroclockfarms.club]

@aral Delete their posts, while making it appear that it is still up. A shadow deletion.

[gabboman@gabboman.xyz]

@aral@mastodon.ar.al @raphv@social.edu.nl

Sometimes the ofense is big enough to nuke the post, warn the user and say “either behave or move to another instance”

Its not always as cut and dry

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@zleap Again, the issue I’m asking about here isn’t whether moderators should be able to moderate. It’s a very specific moderation question:

Should I be able to delete your posts?

Not should I be able to moderate you if you’re on my instance or should I be able to limit or suspend your account.

Very specifically:

Should I be able to delete your post or should I only be able to ask you to delete it (to unsuspend your account or on threat of suspension, for example).

[geist@eldritch.cafe]

@aral IMO moderators should still retain the technical ability to forcibly delete posts, e.g. the offender is making threats or is doxxing people.

Apart from these extreme cases, there should be a framework of gradual response (possibly also rapid), and it's clear to me that if there is appeal to the offender's responsibility (and a chance to correct course), a refusal to do so should escalate to taking action against the account itself,

a post itself may be problematic but the author might also, so I see no point in deleting their posts for them if they are just going to post again.

banning a user should take their posts down too though.

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@eslam94 Hi Eslam, I am not asking whether or not moderation should exist.

I’m asking a very specific moderation policy question:

Should I be able to delete your posts or should I, for example, suspend your account and ask you to delete your own post if you want your account unsuspended?

There is a big difference between the two as to how we view the ownership of what is posted.

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@MontgomeryGator Wow, ok.

That’s just… terrible?

[bob@epicyon.libreserver.org]

@aral Admins or moderators should always be able to delete posts or accounts. They are the ones who carry the legal liability for publication.

Long ago when Gargron was just a baby dev, isis started showing up on what was then the fediverse. Their accounts got deleted. No discussion or debate. Just delete. I am now nostalgic for a time when admins had some sort of backbone, and fascist stuff was rejected without fuss.

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@zleap Also, I wonder if the response would be different if I’d asked if moderators should be able to edit other people’s posts.

If I have a three-post thread and they delete the second one, that’s basically an edit.

[eslam94@mastodon.social]

@aral Good morning, Aral
“Freedom without responsibility turns platforms into chaos. I don’t think moderators should control people’s voices completely by deleting everything themselves, but there also has to be accountability. If someone breaks clear rules, suspending the account and asking the person to remove the post themselves makes more sense to me — because it keeps responsibility on the user, not on moderators acting like owners of everyone’s speech

[zleap@techhub.social]

@aral

"if you’re on my instance or should I be able to limit or suspend your account."

In this case YES, your instance your rules as long as that is made clear on sign up (which it is) then there should not be a problem, if people don't like following rules, they can set up their own instance, and take on associated costs, risks or liabilities that come from that.

[thibaut@mamot.fr]

@aral I think instance moderators should be able to delete people's posts, if needed, but it would be great to pair it with a system that would allow the users of that instance to access the list of deleted posts during a specific time, to ensure that there is no abuse from the moderator.

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@bob Accounts: agreed.

Individual posts: this is where I have a problem.

Limit the account: sure
Suspend the account: sure
Delete the account: sure

Suspend the account or threaten to suspend it if person doesn’t delete a certain post: sure

But the person who wrote it should be the one who deletes it if it’s the post and not the person that is seen as problematic.

Otherwise, you’re saying the content doesn’t belong to the author, it belongs to the host.

If deleting other people’s posts is all right, why not also edit other people’s posts to reword them or remove the problematic bits as deemed by the particular moderators of a particular server?

So, again, this isn’t about whether there should be moderation. It’s a very specific question about where we draw the lines as to who owns the content they author and who has a right to delete it versus, say, remove it from view or ask the person to go elsewhere.

[greenwhale@dice.camp]

@zleap

What happens when that person is offline? For a day? For three days? When would that ban come into effect?

@aral