a common refrain from the new moderators on fosstodon is "I promise to be unbiased"

this is the wrong fucken answer when you're moderating shit on the internet

you need to be biased as hell against hate speech, abuse tactics, etc. you need to have principles and beliefs and the willingness to take measures to defend them by locking out people and groups who do not share them

if you don't, your space will belong to the worst people you weren't willing to stand up to, and the people you were supposed to protect will leave

@khm one of the new mods posted a nazi screed https://hachyderm.io/@maxine/114608688227746424

completely unsurprising example of someone without principals empowering a person who believes running is mouth is more important than anyone else's safety

@khm While that's true up to a point I think that's a dangerous slippery slope. If someone not unbiased decides they have a ton of hate for a specific group of people, that group of people will in turn not feel welcome either. I know that generally the Fediverse's answer to most things is grab the pitchforks and get very mad at the establishment, or the system, or capitalism, or people who run WIndows/don't use alt text but in this case moderation in all things is very true. Unbiased Maybe not the best approach. "THAT IS THE WRONG FUCKING ANSWER!": maybe not the best approach either. But hey, who am I ...

I don't really care about this enlightened centrist bullshit

if someone's opinion holds that being able to run their mouth on other people's servers is more important than the safety of a single human being then I don't want that person to feel welcome at all

I do not fail to note that instead of providing a single justification for your assertion you just spewed forth a laundry list of petty complaints about the Fediverse and I think that's maybe a good reason to sit down and reconsider your priorities

@khm I think this view is a bit odd; when a judge promises to be unbiased, they're promising to not let their personal biases influence the decision, the entire point is to apply a set of rules in some consistent manner, you can't do that if you're actually truly unbiased (how would you make a decision if everything is worth the same?)
A moderator should not be biased...by their own personal views, the "biased as hell" thing you're talking about is law (not _the_), it makes little sense to call the default state a bias.

the considerations that a judge (who is a representative of an armed state and is empowered to direct the physical enforcement of their decisions) owes to people in a courtroom and the considerations that an internet website post-deleter (who is a representative of the site's owner and is empowered only to manipulate the contents of the website) owes to the users of the site are not comparable

for a judge, the stakes are much higher, the considerations of influence much broader, the body of work they must interpret and to which they must adhere is much more explicit and well defined, and they are not the same job.

a community moderator is definitely going to be biased by their own personal views because there is no functional method of stopping that. this is my whole point, in fact: it's crucial that the community moderator be someone whose personal views are aligned with the those of the community, and they act accordingly. otherwise there are not going to be any community values.

if someone shows up with shitty personal values but 'promises to be impartial' they are, in the long run, lying, and people who otherwise would not have to fight for their own safety will find themselves having to do so (or, as I said originally, leaving)

@khm I think I understand your view better, that does make more sense than what I initially understood.

Though I would (personally) think twice before having someone who decides with only their personal values moderate anything, they are not the community. Though I suppose there's no real alternative to that anyway.

I agree, it's not perfect, and ideally you've got a whole team of mods so you wind up with some sort of consensus with more than just one person's voice being heard... but in the moment, when it comes time to take action, it really is just down to the person doing the moderating. So it's important to get the right person.

@cxbyte @khm
> it makes little sense to call the default state a bias.

fwiw i think it does make sense to call it that and we should do it way more regularly

the problem is that even with an actual literal judge there's a huge space of grey area and judgment calls that *will* force a decision to be made that's informed by a bunch of unconscious (or conscious) assumptions and biases that that particular decisionmaker has made

what's a "reasonable" amount of force to defend yourself against an abusive spouse?

has a litigant's conduct been so egregious as to deny them costs even if they win at trial on the merits? does their motivation matter? does the economic disparity between the parties matter?

what's an appropriate sentencing length for this offender? does it matter that he grew up in a bad home and suffered the same abuse he's just been convicted of?

the judge can't bring herself to believe this witness. why?

there's no true neutrality, just a desire to apply the law (or rules or whatever) in good faith and to try to come to some understanding of the facts that accurately reflects reality, versus the presence or absence of a *personal* interest and bias (it's your family member on trial, you're being paid by the defendant, etc.) - which the original topic of this thread really wasn't about

@cxbyte @khm and that "i promise not to be unbiased" was in that context very much about ideological value systems (necessary fundamental) rather than personal interest (gets in the way)

"actually this guy is poor and therefore a bad person so they should be punished harder" has been the unquestioned default for a very long time notwithstanding it is clearly evil

to do otherwise is a revolutionary woke ideology

RE: https://kill-corporations.enterprises/objects/0ae4fb4f-ea6a-4d26-b9b4-bb5a152746ab

@khm
> if someone shows up with shitty personal values but 'promises to be impartial' they are, in the long run, lying,

a little louder and greener for those in the back (and front and sides)

i almost wish antonin scalia were alive just so the memory of that kind of blatant bad faith would be a bit fresher

RE: https://hj.9fs.net/khm/p/1748960213.095504

I got you :\.