Healthy Discourse
This one's a bit of a ramble, but I mean to get it out quick.
I want to thank the people who emailed me and wrote in my guestbook regarding my recent post; both supportive and challenging messages have prompted me to think about free speech, codes of conduct, and what it means to be a fair-minded person. I also want to acknowledge the thoughtful responses made by Nate and Sage. The discourse around here in the last few days has veered towards meta-meta-blogging, and I know my role in stirring things up. The point of this post is to take responsibility accordingly.
First, the current/temporary link to the Code of Conduct atop the Discovery feed is due to my last post. Anyone who's ever misbehaved in school (or in the workplace) which resulted in a blanket statement made by the teacher/principal/management to everyone else knows the feeling of culpability. I don't regret writing the two posts that led up to it, but I would regret not extending fairness to Herman since there's a sense that his response is passive aggressive or slimy.
Herman reached out to me via email on Monday, roughly 16 hours after my post. Here's what I received:
Hey there,
I just read your post w/r to the hiding of your previous post. I apologise for leaving you salty.
I tend to hide all posts that are jabs at a specific person (in this case Robert). The reason for this is, if I don't, it leads to people jabbing back and bickering on the discovery feed. This isn't what I want for the feed, and I hope you can understand my reasons for moderating the feed in such a way. For clarity, it wasn't because you were calling out spam, or anything like that.
Being hidden from the discovery feed isn't a banning of your blog, it's just me keeping the feed happy and healthy, instead of antagonistic. You're not going to be de-platformed or anything obtuse, I just don't want conflict on the feed.
I hope you'll take the time to earnestly try and understand the reason for my actions, instead of writing them off as me being malicious.
I'm also happy to answer any questions you have about how I moderate, as well as the code of conduct. Feedback is how I make Bear a better place to be.
Have a good rest of your week.
I found it to be a fair and cordial message. In fact, I took Herman's suggestion to take the time to earnestly try and understand his perspective to heart, and have been mulling over it the last couple days. I assumed there were three reasons for my initial post to get shadow-banned (e.g., it was controversial, low-effort, and/or harsh), but I overlooked how I was making personal attacks and subtle digs. I'll own that: (1) I was a bit pretentious and aggressive in my first post; (2) my follow-up was motivated by saltiness; and (3) precisely because those things feel good in the moment, such posts can be tricky for moderation.
So, I do accept Herman's apology for leaving me salty. In turn, I apologize for putting him in a difficult spot with my previous writing—and with the next bit.
As far as I can tell, the Discovery feed has not devolved into a back-and-forth jabbing or bickering session. There's been more discourse around free speech and conduct and what it means to express one's views, but I regard these as worthwhile topics to explore. I also challenge the underlying premise that conflict is inherently bad. I know it makes the job of moderating that much more exhausting, and I doubt it's something that can be integrated into the formula for what counts as trending and not. Nevertheless, from the limited data I have (e.g., messages I've received, the number of toasts, the quality of reply posts), I think the community welcomes the element of disagreement and is mature enough to handle it.
For what it's worth, I empathize with how challenging this can be. I'm an educator, and the considerations around free speech and civility and tolerance appear in the microcosm of the classroom. It's my role to ensure a space that is conducive to both dialogue and dignity. As others have suggested, hate speech is the no-fly zone. As far as I can tell, the Bear community is in consensus on that front.
So where does the proverbial line get drawn? In my work, I draw on the philosopher Karl Popper's views on tolerance. He said that extreme tolerance is what leads to societal decline, because that form of tolerance includes tolerating the intolerant. The intolerant, of course, do not return such favors. Over time, they gain traction, and hateful views and voices become embedded in discourse. One just needs to consider the rise in authoritarian and fascist ideas in the last decade or so to see how this is apparent.
How does this connect to Bear? I want to suggest that toxic positivity, or the stance that we should avoid conflict altogether, is not ideal. Otherwise, my concern that Bear is a factory that doesn't care for what is written but that it is written will persist, and the noise will continue to overwhelm meaningful signals. On the other hand, moderation is still necessary, but I suggest it be limited to addressing intolerance. You know it when you see it: the hateful takes that strip away another person's or people's dignity, rights as human beings, or sense of belonging in a space.
On that note, I also feel responsible for Robert's response in which he supposes he is trash. I know it's really presumptuous of me to think I'm the cause of that post, but again: as an educator, I've seen how people respond to different stimuli in the classroom. In every interaction there are at least two parties involved. So, to Robert, for what it's worth: as much as I take issue with the quality of your writing, I don't know you enough to comment on the quality of your character, and I'm sorry that my words affected you negatively.
I'm still undecided where to go from here for blogging, but I wanted to model the sort of discourse I want to be a part of, not just in the blogosphere, but in all realms of life.