We’re starting with a strict stance on removing posts that neutrally discuss whether a project used AI. This morning we had a thread go from that, in six responses, to purity-testing whether a project was sufficiently anti-AI and naming individual targets for bile. This can’t go on.
“Derailing” is very hard. Comments that connect stories to prior art and related topics are some of the best on the site. Comments that do so to pick fights look very, very similar. I’d welcome attempts from you or others to define it better than a “know it when I see it” judgment call). Then maybe when we’re better-resourced and have re-established rhetorical norms we can lighten up to that standard.
I would like to carefully express a disagreement with this approach. I’m sympathetic about the troubles caused by derailing, and I understand that such an approach may seem reasonable from the perspective of reducing derailing. However, it leaves me very uncomfortable about the community that this will foster, for two reasons:
The update described in this story already makes it difficult for people who would like to avoid LLM-related content to do so. Outlawing neutral discussions about AI usage makes that even harder, indicating that there is no on-site mechanism to find out about LLM usage. The only two remaining approaches are to a) look at the content yourself, which becomes a denial-of-service attack on us at this scale, b) to create an external, optional web extension to share such marks. With the approach taken by moderators, first with pandering to LLM proponents ostensibly due to personal attacks, and now with removing neutral discussion, I have no confidence that something like b) won’t be considered a tool for discrimination and thus lead to bans or being shooed out of the community.
This choice strikes me as trying to “keep the peace”. I have seen abusive situations play out, where people kept quiet to placate the abuser, and it never reduced the harm, just made it harder to stand for yourself. I am also sure that you’re aware of fascist tactics, painting all-but-complete support as form of “compromise”, and themselves as victims. I am not saying either of the situations is happening here, but I want to point out by analogy that your choice is not at all a compromise. It is very explicit support for LLM boosters, and it removes all the tools from people like me, all within the span of two days.
I have other qualms about moderating decisions. The fact that I have seen no toxic behavior from LLM avoiders on this thread, and that the discussion has been extremely respectful, contrasts with the purported “boxing ring” behavior as described in the story. While I don’t doubt that such events have happened, the fact that this hasn’t occurred here indicates that you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making a lot of people responsible for the unwise decisions of a select few.
I believe that this change in moderation rules is not something that should be kept in comments and lost to time, but rather expressed in a more public way, just like this story was. In my eyes, it’s a very major difference from what the story portrayed, and it shouldn’t be swept under the rug. I wanted to stay on Lobsters for a while and check posts for AI usage manually. I believed that you’re trying out a compromise and have everyone’s best interests in mind, and that you might consider adding a trigger warning-like tag. But making this decision on moderation, without constructively responding to my or anyone else’s grievances about what this means for people who would like to avoid seeing LLM-related content, indicates that I am not welcome here at all. While I respect that this is your site and you can do anything with it, it leaves me deeply hurt that a place I enjoy so much is not-so-subtly hinting me to move out.
Yes.
We’re starting with a strict stance on removing posts that neutrally discuss whether a project used AI. This morning we had a thread go from that, in six responses, to purity-testing whether a project was sufficiently anti-AI and naming individual targets for bile. This can’t go on.
“Derailing” is very hard. Comments that connect stories to prior art and related topics are some of the best on the site. Comments that do so to pick fights look very, very similar. I’d welcome attempts from you or others to define it better than a “know it when I see it” judgment call). Then maybe when we’re better-resourced and have re-established rhetorical norms we can lighten up to that standard.
score 14 · canonical
I would like to carefully express a disagreement with this approach. I’m sympathetic about the troubles caused by derailing, and I understand that such an approach may seem reasonable from the perspective of reducing derailing. However, it leaves me very uncomfortable about the community that this will foster, for two reasons:
The update described in this story already makes it difficult for people who would like to avoid LLM-related content to do so. Outlawing neutral discussions about AI usage makes that even harder, indicating that there is no on-site mechanism to find out about LLM usage. The only two remaining approaches are to a) look at the content yourself, which becomes a denial-of-service attack on us at this scale, b) to create an external, optional web extension to share such marks. With the approach taken by moderators, first with pandering to LLM proponents ostensibly due to personal attacks, and now with removing neutral discussion, I have no confidence that something like b) won’t be considered a tool for discrimination and thus lead to bans or being shooed out of the community.
This choice strikes me as trying to “keep the peace”. I have seen abusive situations play out, where people kept quiet to placate the abuser, and it never reduced the harm, just made it harder to stand for yourself. I am also sure that you’re aware of fascist tactics, painting all-but-complete support as form of “compromise”, and themselves as victims. I am not saying either of the situations is happening here, but I want to point out by analogy that your choice is not at all a compromise. It is very explicit support for LLM boosters, and it removes all the tools from people like me, all within the span of two days.
I have other qualms about moderating decisions. The fact that I have seen no toxic behavior from LLM avoiders on this thread, and that the discussion has been extremely respectful, contrasts with the purported “boxing ring” behavior as described in the story. While I don’t doubt that such events have happened, the fact that this hasn’t occurred here indicates that you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making a lot of people responsible for the unwise decisions of a select few.
I believe that this change in moderation rules is not something that should be kept in comments and lost to time, but rather expressed in a more public way, just like this story was. In my eyes, it’s a very major difference from what the story portrayed, and it shouldn’t be swept under the rug. I wanted to stay on Lobsters for a while and check posts for AI usage manually. I believed that you’re trying out a compromise and have everyone’s best interests in mind, and that you might consider adding a trigger warning-like tag. But making this decision on moderation, without constructively responding to my or anyone else’s grievances about what this means for people who would like to avoid seeing LLM-related content, indicates that I am not welcome here at all. While I respect that this is your site and you can do anything with it, it leaves me deeply hurt that a place I enjoy so much is not-so-subtly hinting me to move out.
score 10 · canonical
deleted by creator