Official announcements and happiness!
How important is our anti-harassment stance to you?
Much has been made in the press about our approach to harassment. Internally, this isn't something we spend a great deal of time talking about, it just seems like the responsible thing for us to do.
But maybe we should talk more about it. What do you think? Is it something that really brings you here?




It's super important to me. Communities will still go toxic because moderation is a difficult feat, but the ability to prevent someone from coming back over and over again while still maintaining community anonymity is huge.
To have harassment as a #1 in a site as it's developed, is...really nice. Not going to lie, I like even the notion of someone taking the harassment and bullying seriously instead of hemming and hawing over free speech, and acting like the people dishing bile are worth more than the ones they're victimizing.
I've been in toxic communities, and I've also been in communities where people were incredibly supportive and kind to each other, and the second is worth ten thousand communities of the first--and they lasted longer, had more dedicated participants, had better content, discussions, and friendships.
I feel like I should clarify, by the way. When I say harassment, I mean rape threats, death threats, doxxing, following people from community to community, stalking them online and off, rallying groups of others to join in, telling people to kill themselves, telling them to hurt themselves, or telling them that they're worthless, stupid, or just plain shit for their opinions.
Harassment isn't just disagreement and harassment isn't criticizing others' actions or words, because words and actions need to be disputed, discussed, and examined by many people. That's discussion, and it's critical to maintaining healthy communities and relationships. You have to feel safe enough to say, "I don't agree." for a community to work.
In comparison, harassment, to me, is attacking someone's worth as a human being for the crime of having displeased you. It's treating them as not just wrong, but worthless and deserving of harm (emotional, financial, social, physical, or other) for the crime of angering you.
This is really well phrased, thank you.
Being new to the internet culture, this has helped me understand harassment! I haven't really seen it in action 100%. Really great explanation for me :)
I agree with most of your opinion, but I think you need to let people tell stupid people that they are stupid. I also think you need to be alowed to criticize people without basis for your argument. I get that the words they use can hurt, but they are just words.
"When I say harassment, I mean rape threats, death threats, doxxing, following people from community to community, stalking them online and off, rallying groups of others to join in, telling people to kill themselves, telling them to hurt themselves..." I think that is where I would like to see the line drawn.
Though, I did not like your comment,
" like even the notion of someone taking the harassment and bullying seriously instead of hemming and hawing over free speech, and acting like the people dishing bile are worth more than the ones they're victimizing."
Although not everyplace has free speech, it is something that I personally hold dear. My right to tell someone to fuck-off or call them a cock-sucker is truly important to me. I also think that if somebody goats you into it that saying 'you should go die in a fire' is completely acceptable. On the other hand, if somebody is looking for help with cutting themselves or suicide then it is not. So maybe we need to consider the context in which things are being said more than just what is being said.
This line is so hard to draw and I'm not very good at it personally. I, like you, really like the ability to tell someone they are wrong. But, I know that sometimes people take this WAY over boundaries and it becomes not OK.
I think it's nearly impossible to draft a policy that perfectly covers everything the way you, or others want.
Although not everyplace has free speech, it is something that I personally hold dear. My right to tell someone to fuck-off or call them a cock-sucker is truly important to me. I also think that if somebody goats you into it that saying 'you should go die in a fire' is completely acceptable.
Actually, free speech only protects your rights from the government trying to punish you for that, and it does not cover things like libel and threats, and it sure as hell does not mean that other people are required to allow it on their own spaces.
Thank you for this. So many people think the right of free speech means anything to anyone anywhere anytime. Just because you may want to say something, doesn't mean someone has to give you a platform.
It's the argument of the Duck Dynastys and the Paula Deens. "Free speech means I can say whatever I want anywhere!"
Free speech also means that the people who own the platforms you use can refuse to spread that message.
Its not so hard to draw if you think of it this way: what is the potentiAl harm? Free speech is NOT a given on the internet, and in the US even that can end (or is supposed to) when it can bring real harm to the victim.
You can tell someone to fuck off. But you cannot shout fire in a crowded building.
And it doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want Without Consequences.
Yeah. About that.
and
I'm not a person who believes in banning disagreement, and I'm sure as hell not a person who thinks that disagreement must be polite or it's invalid. And I'm not sure how you read that list and came up with firing off a "fuck off" as being an example of harassment, because it's absolutely not. Everyone has the right to disengage from an exchange at whatever level of politeness they feel warranted.
Cocksucker is much more likely to be harassment, because you're insulting cocksuckers everywhere by comparing them to a total dickhead.
You're trying to preserve your right to tell someone to fuck off, or call them a nasty name once (I hope only once). I'm trying to say that no one should have to open a inbox filled with messages telling them that they're a cocksucker, a whore, a slut, an ugly fuckhole, stupid, too fat to love, unworthy of life, a waste of genetic material, a shame to their parents, or that they should kill themselves because they are: wearing makeup to hide acne, not wearing makeup, not being attractive, being attractive, not being sexually active, being sexually active, not liking someone's demeaning comments about them, telling someone to stop contacting them, for making an ill-planned comment, asking a stupid question, for not understanding code, for not using the right words, for not thinking the right thoughts. Because words do hurt, and they aren't just words, they're the feelings that are being inflicted on the person being targeted. Fear, hurt, confusion, isolation, and pain, all being deliberately inflicted on them for failing to be what others wanted.
Do you see the line? The line is 'the response is personal, cruel, violent, unreasonable, and sustained.'
You want to call a fucker a fucker. That's going to be context dependent, but whatever. It's the kind of thing someone will have to decide on as it comes up. But as long as you don't call a fucker a fucker every day for a month, you probably aren't crossing the harassment line.
This is a difficult thing to describe fully, because there are more subtle types of harassment, and there's the fact that no one is owed listeners, and then there's the fact that communities absolutely need to be able to cut out toxic people, even if they don't have a good reason, even if those toxic people are very polite. There is always, always context.
It's complicated.
A good analogy.
See, this I get, but I also think it's unnecessary to actually call someone a cocksucker. I'd rather just ignore them or block them than enter in a name calling contest. Fighting with idiots just takes you down to their level, and they'll win because they have experience.
Even if you give in that one time and call someone a nasty name, just once, what if 1,000 other people made that same decision at that point in time? How do you know whether your single comment is adding to an inbox filled with harassing messages? I think maybe even one time is too many.
I've been on reddit for many years and I've never seen anything like that happen first hand. People are acting like it happens in every thread.
I get what you mean about all of them apart from 'rallying groups of others to join in'. I think that can be expected in networks. People share links to content and discussions that they think others would be interested in or support them on. I don't think that is bad in itself, it's more about the behaviour of people who do get rallied to a new place.
All of my favourite communities have rules about not going to the source. You can link someone being stupid, but encouraging people to to back and tell them that they're stupid is against the rules, and will get your thread or post deleted. And if someone goes and checks out the source, and members of the community are there spreading piss and vinegar, that is also going to get the post deleted.
I mean, I can see what you mean here about non-harassment uses of linking people to stuff, but that's not what I'm talking about at all. Group harassment by communities is a very real issue, and no one gets to wash their hands of responsibility because all they did was provide a link and a wink.
It was becoming overwhelming, in every sub, in every topic. I could say the sky was blue, and people would argue with me, call me names, and belittle me with no reason. Even in "moderated" subs, when I asked mods for help, it was like there were no mods. I gave up on reddit. -redditor for 9+ years. No more.
Just because you've never seen or personally experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Look at, for example, the widely publicized example of how Leslie Jones was harassed off twitter for the crime of being a black woman on the internet.
Cock-sucker is a particularly revealing choice of pejorative, too. Let's use something women and gay men do as an insult. How refreshing!
You're wrong.
There are very few instances where words should be divorced from their context. Internet forums are not one of them.
I've been on reddit since I was in my teens, and this behavior is commonplace.
Actually, free speech only protects your rights from the government trying to punish you for that, and it does not cover things like libel and threats, and it sure as hell does not mean that other people are required to allow it on their own spaces.
yeah, I don't disagree but if you post something online I tend to think that you are posting in a public space.
Think of it this was, you can be naked in your home and naked in your yard but not naked at the store. The store is a shared public space, your yard is technically a private space, and your home is a safe space. If you expect some small corner of the internet to be your home that is fine but you cannot expect the bulk of social media to be your home. It is more like your yard, yes you can be naked there but people will see and you are not free from criticism about your lack of working out (sorry I don't care if you are fat it's just an example).
So I guess my point is, I want free speech to apply on Reddit, Imzy, Voat, F**k and all other social media, because there are not our private journal, they are a place where ideas need to be exchanged.
Sure, but I tend to choose to not be a part of platforms that don't allow me to have free speech. Why would I? censorship is bad, it always has been, why should we let the internet be censored? Because our feelings are hurt by assholes? We can grow thicker skin. If somebody makes a threat arrest them, ban them, do whatever. But is somebody say fuck off you damn cunt, no! Fuck off with that.
you cannot shout fire in a crowded building.
good point, free speech covers you to be an ass but not a harmful ass.
great sentence. I love this.
Yes. That is my goal.
I don't disagree but I also have some reservations. 1. I don't think this is nearly as big of a problem as you are claiming, and if it is there is always a block of mute button. 2. some people do deserve to be criticized in the harshest of ways for their personal choices. Some people are bad people. 3. having a policy that ties my arms partially behind my back does not prevent this, there is no evidence for that. People will make fake accounts and spread their hate that way. Meanwhile, those of us trying to have a civil, though sometimes spicy fucken discussion, will be punished because we are not anonymous.
I said it before and I will say it again. Context matters. If a neo-nazi espouses that we should kill the jews, his inbox does need to be filled with hate and negative comments. I agree the 16 year old trying to figure out life doesn't deserve that, but I am not sure the way you want to protect them is best.
that being said, I am open to being wrong I just don't think you made an argument proving me so.
that is not how your original wording was, though I can almost agree with that line without reservation.
that is your original wording. That is what I disagree with. Someone who wants to kill an ethnicity is just plain shit for their opinions, anti-vaccination people are plain stupid, and yes gangbangers are worthless unless rehabilitated, I should not be told what I am saying is wrong but your wording, by the strictest interpretation of it, says I am. That is my point. That is my argument. Context matters.
sky is red comrade. \thread
[Content removed by community leader]
Websites are viewable by the public, but they are not publicly owned spaces. The internet as a whole can be, if you're willing to get your own site, but I have a feeling you're not gonna do that.
Think of websites as privately owned buildings, like stores and restaurants. You have the right to talk bullshit on a public street (pending local laws and ordinances about being disruptive), but a restaurant or store owner has the right to kick you out for being an ass in their establishment.
"rape threats, death threats, doxxing, following people from community to community, stalking them online and off, rallying groups of others to join in, telling people to kill themselves, telling them to hurt themselves, or telling them that they're worthless, stupid, or just plain shit for their opinions" is commonplace on reddit?
OK, I admit "calling them stupid" happens a lot, as well as "ganging up on the outsider" when someone invades their ideological bubble, but I don't think the rest do.
Thank you. I'm so tired of these FREEZE PEACH!! types who refuse to acknowledge this.
You've never seen it happen; therefore it doesn't happen. Got it.
"The Internet" isn't being censored. A private company is restricting what you can and cannot say on its platform. That is not "censorship." As for "thicker skin," that's what all bullies tell their victims.
Either you're not paying attention, or you're not being honest.
If you want to throw around slurs, go over to 4chan or Reddit and stay there. Believe it or not, not every social media platform is obliged to play by their rules.
cool story, but bruh
there are a PLETHORA of places where you can be a dickwad to strangers on the internet with absolutely NO consequences
places like that outnumber places NOT like that by a wide margin
you can't dictate every place allow you to act like the internet isn't an extension of reality
i think it's time to accept that and move on
yup
Maybe step out of your subreddit and you'll see it
Sorry you went through that, Kim.
I am really hoping that Imzy will be a more positive place.
[Content deleted by author]
"No means no".
Are you seriously comparing people disagreeing with you in a discussion to rape? Is that what you call "positive use" of anonymity, to trivialise rape and rape survivors while hiding behind an anon account?
Frankly, I think if anyone should lose access to anonymity, it's you.
[Content deleted by author]
[Content deleted by author]
Comparing online disagreement to an actual crime that happens to actual men and women every day is needlessly escalating.
Comparing online disagreement to actual genocidal dictators and hate groups is needlessly escalating.
Calling you out on these things is common decency.
I find your use of a phase taught to women and men to avoid rape to describe people disagreeing with you both escalating and uncharitable. It's not a neutral term, and your choice to use it is offensive. And your ridiculous claim that disagreement is "analogous" to rape is even more offensive.
No. It's not. Not remotely.
And you are right, as I am responding Anon--because I don't choose to out myself as a rape survivor--you cannot compel me not to reply to you, despite your "assumption". I'm sure that must be frustrating for you, but it is nothing like sexual assualt.
Seriously, a reply notification does not force you to come here trying to get the last word.
Unlike, say, forced sex.
You are in no position to lecture others about rudeness when you are failing to follow the basics of respectful communication yourself.
Furthermore
You still don't get how anon works. You can walk away at any time. You can choose to ignore the people who disagree with you at any time, and as long as you're not actively being the same kind of ass in namespace, they can't follow you.
I could walk away right now and ignore your vile comparison, but I do not want it to stand. I do not want other sexual assault survivors to see it and think that Imzy has silently approved of comparing anon comments to rape.
You cannot walk away from someone raping you.
Drop this piece of garbage comparison, and you and I can both walk away from this.
Hello, totally unfamiliar anonymous person with arguments I have never seen on Imzy before!
While something tells me you yourself will not ever see this comment, for the sake of the overall discussion I'm going to address a few aspects of your argument that have not yet been touched upon in this subthead.
Your argument of a strong analogy fails because you are rampantly glossing over the major differences between who gets to set and enforce limits in the listed scenarios.
Item two - "violating site or community rules" relates to cases of unambiguously clear ownership. Community leaders get to set the rules of engagement for their own specific communities. Imzy Staff get to set the overarching rules for the site itself. If someone is violating the site-wide or community-specific rules, then Community Leads and/or Imzy Staff have every right to request and enforce compliance.
Items one and three are about your personal preferences for discourse. You are of course free to request people comply with them when communicating with you, but unless the request is made in a space that is under your ownership and control - like your personal community or your inbox - then these personal limits are not equivalent to comm/site rules, other users are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with them, and Staff/Leaders are under no obligation to enforce your limits for you.
If you wish only to engage with people in spaces in which your personal limits are guaranteed to be treated as enforceable rules, then you need to stick to comms you create and run. If you want to venture out into wider spaces outside of your control, you have to be prepared to deal with people who may not respect your specific personal limits. And while I do actually agree with you on the need for the block utility to be extended to anon accounts, at the end of the day the only person whose actions you can control is you. You have the power to choose not to respond, to unsubscribe from a comm or simply stop reading a thread, to delete notifications unread, to use built-in browser options to disable animations or images, to simply close the tab or window and walk away. You do not have the power to compel anyone else in a shared space to interact with you only in the manner of your choosing.
So, out of curiosity, if someone says "please don't refer to people disagreeing with you on the internet as Hitler or the KKK", would an appropriate response be to compare them to Stalin and Pol Pot? Is that in keeping with your rules for polite discourse?
[Content deleted by author]
That's rich, coming from the guy who chose to compare people who disagreed with him to furies, ghosts, Stalins, Pol Pots, Hitler, and the KKK. Oh, and rapists.
But for the record, the thing that's making you an ass right now is not disagreement over whether anon is viable on this site. It is your choice of comparing a notification that you can dismiss with a click of [Mark All Read] to sexual assault. It is that this comparison of anon disagreement to rape minimizes rape.
You can stop replying. Click on the three vertical lines next to the Reply link to unfollow your own comment so you won't receive notifications about it.
Thing is, you compared the people who disagreed with you to Hitler and Stalin (on the off chance you're not that guy, I do apologize, but it really looks like you are from here) and said the argument was like rape. I am quite sure a hell of a lot of people who died in concentration camps or gulags would be happy to trade. As would plenty of rape victims.
When it comes down to it, you can walk away from this (in theory, at least, although clearly you can't in practice, given how many times you've tried). You can work on ignoring the red dot. You can click "mark as read" on your notifications. If you decide you're just completely done with Imzy, you can switch the email to "example@example.com" and never hear about the site again. You can, in fact, walk away.
Maybe he needs visual help. It took him how long to find compressed view?
Dr. Dre, you can unfollow things with the dropdown.
And you can just Mark all read on your notifcations page.
I was told to kill myself 3 times on Reddit in the 2 years that I was there. Once for calling someone a hipster, once for admitting that I smoked cigarettes (and no, it wasn't "you're going to kill yourself" it was "you're a piece of shit and your family would be better off if you killed yourself today"), and once for saying that I didn't think it was appropriate to say that the treatment of cattle currently is equally as bad as the treatment of slaves in the antebellum south.
One of those also coincided with my decision to leave, when the person telling me to kill myself went through 2 years worth of my commenting history to piece together every identifying piece of information I had ever shared (my city of residence, gender, profession, age, personal appearance, and preferred sexual position) and posted that information as a public reply to me.
It doesn't have to happen a lot to be really scary and awful when it does happen, and it should absolutely be something community leadership is thinking about from the start.
Disagree with me all you want, tell me to fuck off if I'm being an asshole, call me stupid, I don't give a fuck. That's not harassment. Publicly disagreeing with someone's language choices, or long-windedness, or generally stupid opinions: also not harassment. But people do get doxxed, told to kill themselves, stalked, that shit does happen. More frequently than you might think.
When you say coddled and entitled, do you mean the kind of people who think that anyone disagreeing with their choice of language is oppressing their free speech? Or the kind of people who report simple disagreement as harassment and compare it to rape and genocide? Which kind of coddled, entitled people are you talking about here?
Actually not true. Click the 3 dots at the bottom of your post, unfollow, and comments, and viola! No more notifications.
[Content deleted by author]
[Content deleted by author]
You can't actually out yourself by talking about conversations you previously hand and then go back and claim that that wasn't you. Once you cop to being your nameself, you are your nameself. We understand object permanence.
You really don't get anon and it's kinda sad at this point. How about you lurk more and learn?
Unless you mean that because you went back and edited your post that no one remembers what that you said those things or, also another internet thing, took screenshots?
But for the sake of argument, let's pretend you're not the Hilter and Stalin guy. Let's pretend the only thing you have compared anon comments to is rape.
The point about rape being minimized by such a trivial comparison still stands.
There's a reason for Godwin's Law, and it's that comparing things which aren't heinous crimes against humanity to actual heinous crimes against humanity both belittles the real life victims of those crimes and makes your whole argument sound ridiculously hyperbolic.
PS. Dude, just take a fucking break from Imzy.
[Content deleted by author]
Yeah no one "harassed" you on the basis of your protected status, but rather your degrading, offensive remarks. YOU harassed and we didn't tolerate it.
That's an unfortunate bug. I wonder if staff knows about it.
In any case, you can still stop replying.
You really have this theory in your head that you are the victim of harassment just because you choose not to walk away from a conversation that upsets you?
No one is following you around and harrying you. No one is threatening you or your person. We are arguing with your disgusting comparisons and you just can't handle that.
What happened to you? Did you grow up in some Montessori school that taught you your opinions were SUPER SPECIAL but failed to give you any reference point for respecting other people's?
Let me put this in terms a child can understand:
DISAGREEMENT DOES NOT EQUAL HARASSMENT.
DISAGREEMENT IS NOT COMPARABLE TO RAPE.
Get over yourself.
+1
Is his "Mark all read" button broken?
Hi! Those are indeed decent harassment policies and I thank you for posting examples for this post. I think where the line between harassment and objectionable interactions becomes hazy is when personal tolerances and perceptions enter the equation.
People have different thresholds for comfort. This threshold can sometimes tolerate everything listed on a harassment example list and then some, and sometimes it can fall much lower. In a situation -- and we're talking online interactions here -- where no objective line as indicated from your exerpts are crossed, how do you determine if it should be acted on by mods as harassment? I'm confining my focus to open forum spaces and not personal blogs and not a personal spaces carved into a larger platforms. If you were personally uncomfortable with the direction a discussion takes, is it harassment towards you if people keep going on a different track to the one you want? If you were one opinion against many opposing opinions in a heated argument in a singular forum, is that harassment of the individual? What about the other way around? If one person consistently takes discussion in an uncomfortable direction for the whole forum, is that harassment of the group? If one person takes and twists the topic of discussion despite protests from the rest of the forum, is that harassing the group?
I guess my question is: do we weigh the subjective feelings of an individual over the rest of a harassment policy in an open online environment? Do we weigh the subjective feelings of a group? How much context for the interactions are needed? Do we shut down open discussion because someone(s) was no longer comfortable with participating in that discussion? Or do we support clicking the [X] at the top of your screen as the best course of action? Can we do all of that at the same time?
I'll be honest here. I've followed this post and that other anon post closely because they are both relevant to my interests in moderating online interactions. Both were posted in general communities and both were soliciting response for a general topic. Both have taken a much heated turn. I'm very intersted to know how this, and the other post, will fit under the harassment policy Imzy wishes to enforce.
Edit - I would like to show my appreciation for being given the name Zelda.
From mobile browser, it does seem like there is no option to unfollow your own comments. Can staff look into implementing this if it isn't a bug? @greenie, help!
Well, there is the fact that "people are publicly objecting and holding me accountable for things I also said in public and that's persecution and harassment" is literally the logic Donald Trump uses when attacking opponents and the media.
Fred/Dred, your ridiculous insistence TO RAPE SURVIVORS that disagreement is analogous to what we went through is harassment. You have been repeatedly asked to stop, by several people. And you continue despite your hypocritical insistence that people should do what you tell them to do.
You seem to have some really scary issues in regard to wanting to control and silence others, while being completely incapable of taking responsibility for your own words and actions. I have not experienced a single insistence of this "fraught" Imzy atmosphere you talk about, except when you have been castigating, lecturing, slurring and basically being inappropriate in ways that upset people. Every other interaction has been friendly and kind, anon or named.
The common factor in these tensions is not Imzy, it is your bad behavior.
You can start to make amends with a "Dear survivors, I'm truly sorry you were sexually assaulted, and sorry my inappropriate comparisons made you and other survivors upset. Also, sorry for the people I hurt with equally hysterical and offensive comparisons to racists, dictators and killers. I'll try to do better. In future, rather than seeking to hurt and dominate others when I'm feeling a bit harried, I will dismiss the notifications and take a break."
Or you can double down on your nastiness yet again and salt the earth a bit.
Gosh, I wonder which you'll choose.
(And thank you to the kind, reasonable and/or outraged trying to counter the harm he is doing to this baby community. You all rock.)
You rock, Alice. ❤
You're apparently having a discussion somewhere else with someone else.
My God.
At least I can amuse myself with the fact he thinks he's in Team Rocket to take my mind off the fact that he called abuse survivors coddled and entitled.
But let's pretend we believe he has an Imzy twin with the exact same beliefs, blind spots and mode of expression, huh?
This is very thoughtful.
I think it's also pretty simple, when it comes down to it. Voicing opinions that do not violate policy on an open forum are not harassment, because any party can leave an open forum whenever they like. It's like entering a cafe and getting into an argument that does not go against the owner's rules.
It's why however much Dred/Fred would love to call this harassment, he's being met with disbelief. And it's why his opponents have largely not gone crying out for mod intervention. He can voice these opinions, because they're not against policy. We can voice disagreement, because that is also not. No one is harassing anyone. (But being overly descriptive in rape metaphors did cross that line earlier, which is why the mods deleted it.)
It's good that you made the distinction between this and a private blog, because a private blog is a personal space, and continuing on past the point of the owner's comfort is harassment. That's like standing on someone's front lawn and shouting at them when they've asked you to leave.
Treating an open forum like your private blog is just as ridiculous as treating an open cafe like your private lawn.
And Zelda is such a great name, I'm jealous.
Thanks, AnonShannon.
As for private lawns.... Imzy staff have purview of all that goes on on Imzy - communities, posts, comments. Community leaders do the same for their communities - posts and comments. Are post authors in turn supposed get final say on what should and shouldn't go down in the comments of their post in an open forum? It's not an invalid question and some people might assume this is the case given how the greater community is laid out.
I think a post author should have say about when they personally want to back away from their post, but posting to a comm is inherently presenting something to a community for appraisal. It's standing up in that cafe and declaring something to the whole establishment. Trying to control the reactions you get is as good as trying to control the cafe.
If you don't like the reaction of the room, leave the room. Go home where you can only invite friends and control the rules or start your own cafe.
This has been my experience as well. If there truly is some sort of insidious anonymous harassment going on all over Imzy, I would love to see a few examples of it that do not directly involve dear Dredward in some way. Perhaps that might help me, at least, to examine the negativity in a more neutral way, and think about possible solutions, since it won't involve someone who has repeatedly and unapologetically called me names like swarming fury (as if that's even a thing) while comparing me to murders and rapists and insisting that I am a generally damaged person.
My tentative feeling is that if the site doesn't give post creators the ability to manage content on their posts, the intention is that they are not supposed to be able to moderate discussion on them. If Imzy do want people to be able to do that, they need to add the moderation tools to make it possible because as it stands, only the community leaders have actual control and that certainly seems to be by design.
I agree. My understanding is that post creators create space for discussion for the community at large. They should be given tools for how they interact with all other users (blocking, muting) on the site as a whole but not for moderating the specific post once it's in the open wild.
I do know the difference between "insistence" and "instance", honest. But my phone doesn't.
Calm and happy after playing with my kid: Fred/Dred probably genuinely feels ganged up on and hated right now. I do feel a bit sorry for him. I would feel more sorry if he wasn't simultaneously virulent, condescending, dismissive, insulting and insensitive to others, and uncaring of the harm he does. Poor communication skills are one thing; digging your heels in, doubling down, and insulting people all over again is worse. But I still feel sorry for him.
Mate--I've messed up online. I've ended up on fandom_wank. I've done and said things I cringe to remember. I've become over involved and dug myself into untenable positions and decided everyone hates me. All it took to fix it was to get my head in order and then admit I had messed up. Unless you genuinely cross the line into harassment--doxxing, telling people to kill themselves, violating privacy, hate speech, threats etc--and outside of toxic communities, the online community is pretty forgiving. It doesn't mean you won't ever see your mistakes mentioned again, but it's not the end of the world if they are. You can go on and be positive and have fun.
We're not reacting to who you are as a whole person, or rejecting you personally; we are responding to what you choose to say here. My advice is to take a break, and when you come back, consider accepting that sometimes people will strongly disagree with you. Sometimes people will have valid experiences that you don't have--lots of people with anon experience have been trying to share it. Sometimes people will react to the words of yours that mean something to them and not the bits you most want them to focus on, because their priorities are different. Let go of the desire to control the conversation.
You obviously have a very strong vision of what you want Imzy to be, but you can't compel other people to share it. Try respecting others. Don't escalate things by comparing people who disagree with you to Stalin, don't interpret disagreement as assault, don't decide when people share their experiences that they are "damaged" and "coddled" and therefore can be dismissed, and don't, when called out on bad behaviour, play offensive games like "How do you know I wasn't raped too? Gotcha!"
And ffs learn to say "Sorry, I messed up."
Imzy seems to be a great place. Give it a chance to be good to you, too, by being good to other people.
I really wish you would just leave, as you've um'd and ah'd about doing so frequently, until you realise you still have a potential audience of people to insult.
Imzy is clearly not a site that is going to work for you. You don't seem to be getting along with any of the members here (intentionally, is my belief), and you're vocally opposed to a lot of the features that others, including myself, seem to love and intentionally seek out on this site, including the anon function.
Anon provides a safe place for me, it provides a 'side universe' to my name space which allows me more freedom for creativity and discussion, which I can take back to namespace if I choose. Mostly I see you debating that anon space doesn't work, or that it's extremely problematic, and I just want to say that I have had different experiences and the anon spaces are what specifically drew me here.
You are a very big source of discomfort for me here, and it gets worse and worse each time. I don't believe for a minute you actually think you're an innocent victim, I think you're a troll full of garbage and you're here to offend as many people as possible by referring to us as 'damaged', 'Hitlers', and now likening our responses to you (which are JUSTIFIABLY angry a lot of the time) to rape, which apparently was the last straw for me personally.
I'm really at a loss to explain to myself why you haven't been banned; why you even still have the ability to continue posting when all you do is actively set out to upset people under the guise of "debating" functions on Imzy. You can say that my post isn't particularly helpful to Imzy for whatever reason; I don't think any of yours have been helpful either, I think they've just been upsetting, intentionally aggravating, and triggering.
I too want better harassment and reporting policies, because it's people like you who drive me away from places like this. And I would leave just to avoid you, because you've said incredibly upsetting things, but honestly I love Imzy; I can see great potential here, and I can see that YOU are the common problem in every single post which has had any animosity at all. And I know I'm not the only person feeling it, and I'm afraid nothing will change unless everyone adds their voice to it.
So there's mine.
[Content deleted by author]
[Content deleted by author]
Okay, lack of threading is a huge hindrance to discussion. I think this one was addressed to me. I really think -- my perception of events, if you prefer -- you're taking it upon yourself to create discreet groups of "them" and "me", and subsequently assigning motives and even histories to that entire group of "them" because one or two of them decided to share some history with you. This does not give me confidence that you understand Anon as well as you have indicated.
If I may, you as an individual are not being silenced. A set of your particular views are being objected to because they were seen as offensive. You cannot possibly decide what people take offense to. You definitely cannot decide that many people are wrong to be offended by your views. You cannot tell them they can't be offended. It's not against the rules, sure, but surely even you have to admit that that's lacking in basic human decency? What you can do is apologize and move on. What you can do is learn why your words brought about this reaction. What you can do is learn to be careful with you words. From what I see, the anons here are, perhaps shortly, trying to explain to you why your words are offensive to them. You can listen to them. You can learn. You cannot tell them they're wrong for being offended. I cannot stress that enough. You can't tell them, "well, some victims don't react like you!" That's just...that's just not on, especially when you then turn around and equate their objections to your offensive language to harassment.
As for dragging other people and conversations into this - it's another property of Anon that you've overlooked. You may be anonymous here, but that doesn't make you part of a faceless mob. Especially here on Imzy, you have a specific anon identity in this particular conversation. You've also made extremely evident that you are the author of that other post and it's completely within rights for people to connect the dots and argue with the greater context in mind. You were free to walk away and disconnect from it all. You haven't.
As for why no mod has intervened - look up. They have intervened. Comments have been deleted. I'm sure you know this because one of them was yours. I can't speak for the mods but I assume they're not intervening because there isn't anything to intervene. For all intents, this thing we have here is a heated discussion. By calling for mods, who are you asking for to be silenced? The offended people? Yourself? I'm not even sure all of them on staff are watching this go down. To whomever is watching this, I apologize for another wall of text.
What we can also do is self-police. Be a decent human being. Don't rely on mods to keep the peace. Be a decent human being and keep the peace along with everyone else. That's a community.
[Content deleted by author]
Do you have any evidence of this so-called harassment? Based on these threads, I see no one threatening you with rape. No death threats. No online stalking, and if you are accusing people of offline stalking, you better have evidence. (Note: reading public posts of yours is not stalking.) No doxxing. (Connecting the dots between you and the account under which you claim to be a cat is not doxxing.) No rallying groups of others to join in. (Note: you don't have a free pass not to be discussed elsewhere.) No telling you to kill yourself, or hurt yourself.
If these things have happened, then they were deleted, and the mods handled it.
The only grounds I can see trying to stand on is that we are saying you are worthless, stupid or just plain shit for your opinions. But what is actually happening, at most, is that you are told that your opinions are stupid (and offensive) and that your behaviour is terrible. You've had it pointed out to you that you are are the common element in all this "angstfest" you claim to see. You've been given some sound advice on how to communicate positively in a group situation. You've been asked to apologise, to treat others with respect, and to listen to other people. How shocking.
While you've said some pretty offensive things about us.
So, yes. I welcome mod comment.
Okay so! This thread keeps getting a ton of reports and seems to really want us to get involved here.
Fred, I'm sorry but you came into a dead 10 day old thread and, frankly, antagonized people. People responded to you, you responded back. Nothing in this subthread (and nothing that has been reported) approaches "stalking, harassment, doxing". It's disagreement, starting now to get a bit heated.
I'll take a look at the follow/unfollow on individual comments. We added the ability to follow other people's comments so you could pay attention to a thread, but I don't see a reason to not have it work the other way around as well.
Nonnies: please let this thread go. While it's not harassment, it is sorta brigading, which isn't totally ideal.
Fred: please let this thread go. While we are very aware we have improvements to our tools to make, and are working hard on that, for the time being please consider no longer replying or looking at your inbox if it's causing you that much distress.
tldr: everyone, please let this thread die
(I'm distinguishing this comment as leader, not as staff. This might seem like a dumb distinction but I do want to point it out)
Zelda, you are wonderful. Just saying.
I take back everything I have tried to assume about you having some good or even neutral intentions under the nastiness, and that you just struggled with appropriate social interactions and communication.
Your response to Kaylie makes it clear to me that you are merely a harmful and malicious troll, and she called it right. I am sorry I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.
It should be clear to you by now that no one is going to bow down and accept those self-serving, applies-only-to-others-and-not-yourself "rules of engagement" you are going on about. Might as well give up on that one, mate.
I don't want to spoil my Imzy experience--which except for you, has been exceptionally positive and productive--because of a troll. But I am still here because of people like Kaylie, who come here to participate in good faith and contribute and help build a community, and deserve better than to be driven away by someone like you.
Kaylie, please stay. He is one voice, howling into the wind.
Will do. Better to enjoy the good things in Imzy!
Noted, greenie leader. And thank you for looking into the follow/unfollow thing. At least something good came out of this?
Aye aye, greenie.
You might want to realize that you are not the sole arbiter of what's on topic, or what's appropriate, in this thread.
He's not going to lurk more, because that would deprive him of the ability to listen to his own voice. Also, we're just a bunch of <strike>dumb chicks</strike> "furies," what does a brilliant dudely dude have to learn from us, anyway?
If he hadn't realized that a lot of us are women, he'd probably be a lot less petulant about how we're not recognizing his authoritay.
[Content deleted by author]
When I find myself in times of trouble
Our Saint Greenie comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it die
And in your days of darkness
She is standing right in front of you
Speaking words of wisdom, let it die
Let it diiiiiieeeee, let it die
Let it die, let it die
Let there be no answer.
Let it diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee.
As a general rule, in RL and online, I think that if you wouldn't say it to someone much bigger and stronger than you in person, you shouldn't say it at all. Even the most vicious disagreement can be phrased in a way that's respectful--to fall into slurs or cruelty is a sign of laziness or a lack of critical thinking skills. True, everyone has a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you have a right to freedom from consequences for your words, and expulsion from a group is fair if you're not willing to play by the rules that the group sets. It's pretty simple math--act like an ass, and you can stay in the barn.
That being said, I think maybe this should be something that's addressed by each community, too. Some communities can probably weather a little more drama than others. A fandom community might have different expectations than a community about dealing with mental health issues or providing safe spaces for a marginalized group of people. As long as expectations are very clearly stated, it's fair to require people to police their own needs. I don't see any reason why there can't be two communities talking about Trump, for example, with one devoted to maintaining very strict rules of conduct, and the other allowing people to call each other names until the cows come home. I would only ever join the first because I want a harassment-free zone, but that doesn't mean the second can't exist for folks willing to face the burn.
Crucial. Anti-harassment is a precondition of actual free speech. Without it, harassers dominate speech.
And those who benefit from meatspace systems of power & violence, will leverage them into cyberspace. So the powerful have a natural advantage punching down in cyberspace. The resulting speech already dominates the media & world, and is therefore boring.
Imzy's strong anti-harassment stance is why I plan to increasingly support it with my time & resources.
Thanks! I agree with you, but also realize it's important we have clear policies and consistent behavior.
Yes, I'm definitely curious what "consistent behavior" means!
Case 1: I support the user named
FUCKGRINGOS. I wouldn't support a user whose name punches down at Latin@s. Because the relevant infrastructures of violence are pointed at Latin@s.Case 2: "Whites" is a political bloc that invented the concepts of "Whites" & "Blacks" in the US. (I'll double-check with anthropologists & provide sources, if you wish.) Blacks discussing the dangers of whites seems entirely sensible self-defense; like dealing with a volcano. Whites complaining about Blacks, however, is the troubling action of a group invented to be slave masters.
What do you think?
(Disclaimer: I'm in pretty privileged categories. Since I don't self-identify with them, only makes sense to support those they harm.)
I don't even understand what that means. Whites invented the idea of whites and blacks being different groups?
Yes. Keeping in mind I'm double-checking with anthropologists & obtaining sources for people to read further... Back then, those of recent European descent in the US would, if anything, probably identify with a nation/region. So Amelia is Welsh, Onno is Swebian. After all, how do people think of themselves in Europe?
(You can imagine what English-Americans thought of Irish-Americans, and how much work it took for Irish-Americans to attain full privileges of whiteness.)
So "whites" are a political movement, a coalition. Defined in opposition to others. (Otherwise they'd just be "humanity.") What concept did they invent in opposition to "whites"? "Blacks."
Maybe not too surprising. After all, "the United States" itself was invented pretty recently. Big implications to the indigenous population.
(Oh, and I'll inform you when I get that confirmation & sources to investigate further.)
Well, in this case we stood by our policies and didn't see a need to ban this user, but because of the conversation surrounding this username, we are having internal discussions about altering the policy. So, I do believe we are being consistent in that we wrote a policy, are following the policy but being open to change.
Thanks for the response. Hope imzy doesn't compromise too much; would be depressing. Was shocked & impressed at the way imzy supported FUCKGRINGOS. Thought this was my kind of place.
Technology is very open-ended and it requires thought and wisdom behind its uses. When you look at other platforms and their failures, you can definitely pin some on technological issues, but more often than not, you'll see social policies being created as a response.
It is much better to be proactive and help communities keep toxicity out by identifying and declaring certain behaviors as toxic. It sets the tone and makes a place more welcoming.
Every other platform is positioning itself as a place for everybody, but this includes toxic users who drive productive community members away. Everyone agrees there are trolls, but not one single platform will admit it's better to get rid of harmful users and some even accommodate them. Most platforms treat toxic trolls better than spammers.
Thanks for this comment!
I'm pretty surprised to see the idea of harassment and communities being held in opposition - if anti-harassment isn't taken into account, people will end up fleeing for somewhere safer and the only communities that will thrive are ones full of nastiness. (Right now, I think a lot of us are hoping that Imzy will be somewhere safer.)
Thanks, I didn't notice that false opposition! (One I nowadays notice is "free speech vs safety." Which allows pro-harassment people to posture as free speech advocates. They're not even consistent, because they're anti-spam.)
Free speech is not freedom from consequences; a lot of people forget this. The government won't stop you from speaking (in the us), but you can go to jail for verbally abusing others, shouting fire in a crowded room, inciting violence and so forth.
Thisssss. <3
The people who usually equate "free speech" with being able to say and do anything they want are the privileged ones who don't have to deal with harassment in the first place.
Yes, this. For the rest of us, we don't have freedom of speech if harassers are allowed to silence us.
There is no "free speech" when nobody can be heard over the handful of people shouting fire in crowded theaters or the equivalent in hate speech. There is a huge difference between defending free speech and defending the sort of people who drive people off the internet with threats and harassment.
This. Soooo much this!
I think that anti-harassment is one of the biggest "features" of Imzy. This is pretty sad because it seems like this should be a default feature of most sites. That said, I voted Medium important because I believe that the focus should not be primarily on anti-harassment because that won't help Imzy reach critical mass as much as technology features.
It's one of the main reasons I want to see Imzy succeed and don't want to have to use Reddit. I love some of the community on Reddit but I don't want to be in a place that condones or encourages transphobia or paedophilia.
For Imzy to be that, I really hope there is active admin control of allowed content within clearly defined rules. Similar to Moz's etiquette guide / TAGFEE, and Google's company guide to ethics.
We do have some pretty good policies that you should review and give us feedback on. Our community team thinks very carefully about policy.
With regards to etiquette, I think that is really hard. We did this at reddit and I really think it worked against us more than for us. The range of types of discussions and content that go on in communities is SO wide, and when you put one overarching set of etiquette that people need to follow it really can limit and make community leader's job much harder.
BUT, I do understand and generally agree with what you are saying! I will bring this up with the community team this week.
Hey Dan! Thanks for the clear reply & links.
I didn't spot the policies when I made my account, but they seem quite thorough. Can I ask if they extend to a staffer of Imzy deleting/revising communities that breach user rules? I didn't see a point in there but I assume it would be enforced.
Having been a woman on the internet for a while, I strongly believe that not having an anti-harassment stance is the same as having a pro-harassment stance. In the absence of rules and mechanisms of enforcement, communities can easily become dominated by the most hostile members, instead of those with the most to contribute.
And I know some people are worried that 'anti-harassment policies' can end up becoming a barrier to honest discussion and disagreement, but I believe a good definition of harassment can force people to articulate their position, rather than, for example, make a personal attack, and that's something that can promote discussion.
I love what you are saying here ... that "a good definition of harassment will force people to articulate their positions." I don't mind people saying "fuck that" or whatever, when they are truly upset by something. But if you really care about an issue you have to move beyond spewing to clarify what you mean and enter real discussion without descending into abusive behavior.
Medium, because I absolutely still want this stance to stand and be a priority, but there also wouldn't be a reason to come here without the comms and cool features.
I agree
I agree with this 100%. While I think we have created a pretty great foundation, I think we have a lot of innovation that needs to be done. Knowing what I know about our roadmap, we should start seeing a lot of new stuff in coming weeks and I'm really excited about that!
Imzys policy about harassment among other things, is the reason why I'm eager for it to succeed, its the very same reason why I don't use Reddit.
I'm also excited for a drama, harassment-free platform. I just don't want it to turn into a place where no one can speak their mind unless it's widely acceptable.
The inability to speak one's mind is more usually an issue that arises from harassment and absent or vindictive community mods in my experience.
I agree. I'm concerned about the mods, and site leadership. As long as reasonable rules are set, the harassment can be dealt with, and vindictive mods can be called out.
I don't know how much value there is in calling out vindictive mods. You can't fix people or behaviours with call outs--either they disappear, or they double down. And since I've never seen a truly bad mod in power without a team of yes-man friends to run interference for them, even if you do remove the mod, you aren't going to fix the community. Better to start another community for escapees, a little wiser for the experience.
Though the yes-man issue is one of the reasons I'd really like to be able to mod a community anonymously--creating social circles inside your community as a Moderator/Leader can be a decision that affects your ability to be impartial when it comes to dealing with disputes, and can also lead to hurt feelings when you're friends with some people, but not others.
My bad, by call out I meant more to report them to site leaders so they can review the community, not make a callout post publically. Concrete rules would be a way to show exactly how a mod has violated them to someone outside the community that can take action.
I like how Quora handles anonymity. You can answer things and comment anonymously, but everything you say is still tied to your account, so you can't escape responsibility. It keeps the actual value of being anonymous while removing the motivation of saying overly rude things.
Given that all the "meta" communities that caused 95% of the drama on reddit (think subredditdrama, SRS) have already established themselves here, don't keep your hopes up.
Darn. I did meet some pretty intelligent people through this thread, at least. I'll hope instead that the design being more closed-off can contain it then :P
It's what brought me here. I won't say it's what's kept me here, though. I will say that the thoughtful discussions and the people I've met and the generally great atmosphere is what's kept me here.
I was talking to some folk on discord about what happened just before coming here. I got some death threats on another platform. Reported it, and absolutely nothing happened. I like that that wouldn't happen here, and the community atmosphere discourages it on top of it being against the rules. That toxic breeding ground just isn't something I see here. Even when discussions have been heated -- which I have seen a bit of, the overall tone doesn't get personal. And I like that. It's more than just the policy of the site. It's that the way the communities operate focus more on actual communication than hurting the people behind the screens.
This makes me really happy and I hope things just keep getting better for you here.
If it wasn't for the anti-harrassment stance, I wouldn't be on Imzy. As long as there have been human communities, there have been standards of behavior, and in the most successful communities (in my opinion), rudeness and bullying are not tolerated -- and for good reason. It's just common sense. People who think they can make a space for EVERYone including toxic, destructive people, have lost their understanding of what community is.
It didn't necessarily bring me here but it is important to me. I am braced for people behaving badly when the floodgates open.
I'd love to see tools to help alert community leaders to possible threats of violence, especially. I can see usefulness of tools that scan for phrases like "Go kill yourself," and screen it for community leader review prior to publication.
We have an engineer starting in a week who will really be digging into these types of issues. Stay tuned!
That's so cool!
I REALLY appreciate you and yr staff continuing efforts to try to understand and grapple with this issue! Thank you!
Trying to word this carefully, because sometimes things I say are not just taken the wrong way, but actually taken to mean the opposite of what I've said.
With that in mind, quite frankly I am disappointed at the number of medium votes. Of course there wouldn't be a reason to come here without communities, that's kinda a given, isn't it? I mean, if I opened a Burger King and said "this is a harassment free zone", people aren't going to come if I don't have any burgers.
Having come from Reddit, I place a very high priority on the anti-harassment. I feel free to say something here without some random person getting a bug up his butt over a perfectly innocent comment and going to some message board somewhere dedicated only to being jerks and posting the link. If I wanted that crap, I'd still be on Reddit.
The focus should absolutely 100% at all times never waver for a second be on anti-harassment. Period. While some might say that means Imzy will never reach 'critical mass', by whatever measuring stick is used to define that, I disagree on two angles. One, if people want to be here, there will be here. Two, the day Imzy loses their focus and lets "just a few of them in, so we can say we have 200,000 users instead of 198,000" I am out of here so fast there's going to be a sonic boom, and I don't give a royal rodent's posterior what communities there are or aren't that day.
So in closing, I agree with Dan. It's something that isn't discussed because it doesn't need to be. It simply IS, because anything less is unacceptable. You want to participate in a community? Welcome to Imzy. You want to disrupt a community? Get out.
I love this : )
I have to remind myself that the majority of people just don't experience harassment or even toxicity like we do and this is probably why we get a good amount of medium voters.
OR, maybe it really is a huge problem that everyone experiences. This is why I did the poll in the first place because I feel like I am SO in the weeds that I can be out of touch with an average user of the internet.
A lot of people experience harassment. Its just normalized in a lot of contexts or brushed off by (among other things) stating the victim is being too emotional or overreacting, saying things like 'boys will be boys' etc.
A lot of things may be wrong but we are just so used to them and there may be social reprocussions to calling them out! Which can be scary!
It's not a personal issue for me (chronic lurker), but it is something I am deeply wary of. In 2008, a friend of mine got trashed on an anon meme, and some idiot linked her to the discussion. She disappeared from online life. Never saw her again. It was mild, as these things go, but turns out that that doesn't matter much when people online think you're an over-bearing and creepy bitch. It made me far more careful of my words, but I still thought that online harassment was just something you could turn off the computer and be safe from.
It took Amanda Todd's suicide in 2012 to really hit me with how damned serious online harassment is (and how unfair it is), but the situation certainly hasn't improved in the last four years.
(Though yes, I do think you're looking at a much, much bigger data-pool of completely fucked up behaviour than your average internet user!)
I don't think it's a majority of people. I think that the loudest voices are very privileged ones who either don't get harassed or who are harassers themselves.
I had to think about this for quite a while before I replied. I hope my point is clear, but if I can explain something better please ask.
The Anti-Harassment is important, but I have this glimmer of hope that with the nature of the communities being what they are we won't have the same types of issues as other networking sites.
If I don't want to read news or politics, I don't even see it. If I enjoy only serious topics, I only join serious communities.
I think that in and of itself will eliminate the more 'passive' types of keyboard jockeys who need to SEE the content before they get abusive. The ones who come here seeking it out, can be dealt with however is appropriate. Tools we already have at a community leader level such as temp bans (time out for adults!) or community only bans. Or the staff can issue full site wide bans in situations that are beyond the community leaders.
I have so far been pleasantly surprised by the way most folks interact here. I always make an effort to think before I post. While I won't censor my true self and I have been known to curse a lot. There's also a difference between being yourself and being an asshole (in most cases any how), and I don't believe name calling, shaming or threatening someone with any kind of violence is ever appropriate.
For this reason I voted middle of the road. It is important, but it isn't the stance held by Imzy that is the biggest piece of this. It's all the users. We've been given the keys to our own kingdoms.
Excellent point!!! We will all help together :)
You and I are on the same page here completely. In fact, the way that we structured the site and communities and our onboarding and community discovery systems all feed into how we think about harassment and future success of communities.
So, thanks!
Good to know!
This is pretty much what I was going to say. Imzy sets the tone by taking stances and devloping tools to support it, but the communities (the users) are ultimately what sell it.
However, a very strong and consistent brand message must be communicated because you have to attract users that will work hard to support it. The majority of people will find their way here spontaneously, and will learn about the culture second hand, which will water it down. Imzy will attract disruptors that will see fun in taking advantages of weaknesses.
Too true!
Agree with others re: coming here for just that reason. I do enterprise collaboration with various platforms. A common resistance is upper management is concerned about content posted. This is in the enterprise where folks have motivation with posting while keeping reapect and not trolling.
I've preached to upper management that user generated content will always have this "risk". Furthermore, communities of interest do self regulate and maintain a standard of governance. Plus, user T&Cs do provide a sense of control.
This has been some what true out in the mainstream world of social communities. However, as we have seen, this notion of people are inherently good has been challenged. It's a sad state of society that there needs to be an "adult" in the room.
Twitters banning if certan (over 200,000 accounts) users is a good thing. Problem is playing the internet cops is a double edged sword.
With that, I looked forward to Imzy. My expectations are that it goes back to old school bulletin boards we accesed via dial-up modems. Not the kind inside pcs, but the hardware you had to place the receiver in the cradle...ugh I'm that old.
I digress, yes, there were trolls back then but they didn't last long. The community did self regulate.
Now with everyone hiding behind a keyboard, that civility and ability to self regulate simply can't work.
Until now ;) (I hope)
ps: I like the persistent reminding of the governance is prominent when you post. -"keep in mind those community rules"
pps: Funny how the evolution of the web is returning to some of the bits and bytes that made it whst it is today.
Just want to comment and say that I hope businesses can see a reason to use Imzy in the future.
Enterprise as a target market has some good value props, but it has many more challenges.
The best value to organizations is an external b2c platform.
I've spent over 5 years in this space doing everything from design and maintainence of on-prem backend server ecosystems to working with cloud/Saas versions to implementations/roll outs to user suport and feature recommendations/bug tracking to strategy use cases based on business workflows and using metrics for adoption.
Wether internal or external, it's all the same except the end user is employees vs. consumers.
Happy to share war stories.
It's important, but as someone who has spent a ton of time modding all sorts of comms and platforms, anti-brigading tools and comm data are far more important to sorting out and dealing with toxicity than anything.
Yes, it requires a ton of tooling and policies and diligence for sure!
On forums, being able to go 'hey these ten posts are all from the same ip address' or 'hey these new accounts all wanting to talk abotu X all came from the same referral link, and it's from Certain Website' really just knocked the stuffings out of attempts to mess with those communities. I'd never actually accused anyone of anything, just point out those 'interesting facts' to make the BS visible to community and they took care of it.
Harassment and bullying are why I quit participating in most if not all public social media spaces. Even just seeing it happen upsets me.
So far, I love the communities on Imzy, and continue to have hope for the site.
I think the third option should read I'm primarily here for the communities but the anti-harrasement stance is still important.
Why? That's simple. Any decent human should be against true harassment and if they aren't and believe it's OK to harass people, they won't last long here in my opinion.
Also I'd like to just make clear the point that harassing someone and disagreeing/debating them are two very different things. You can disagree and argue/debate your point without harassing someone.
I love what you (@Dan) and the rest of the @imzy staff are doing here. People on Reddit think they can truly say anything and hide behind the banner of free speech and subreddit leaders who have the power to enforce rules chose not to. I have the vision that Communities here can allow intelligent conversation and actualky promote the transfer of ideas rather than down voting people simply because you disagree with them. Also thanks for not doing down votes, everyone seems to misuse those anyways.
It's incredibly important to me, it's the main reason I'm using the site. The fact that this website doesn't allow the terrible things places like reddit or 4chan allow is a godsend. Keep it up, all of you!
If people want to be belligerent, attacking and harassing they should join Reddit. I'm trying Imzy for a more positive experience.
This is a big factor as to why I want this site to be successful. I'm tired of the trolls having free reign.
The fact that Imzy is a safe place, free of trolls and jerk holes, is one of the biggest reasons I'm here.
It's very important to me. I'm old enough to have taken a class or two on constitutional law, and old enough to have been around the block. A couple times. I know when being a jerk just isn't needed. Or can be blocked w/o someone yelling "my rights!" The policy is Extremely important to me sticking around for the long haul.
I've left Facebook and Twitter and greatly restricted my Tumblr use because of harassment, so to have this policy present from the start is very important to me.
Oh, I'm so sorry that happened to you. (Knew you on LJ and Dreamwidth under another pseud, and you were always lovely).
A big reason why I'm here is the hope that this will be a less toxic community.
Yes, it was what initially drew me in. After horrific experiences on other community based platforms, a stance like yours is mandatory for me. Happy to support!
To me, it is important that users do not feel threatened.
The commitment to anti harassment is what makes me really hopeful about Imzy as a long plan, sustainable community hub. Afaik this policy will make y'all (us all?) rather unique among content aggregators that stand as communities as well. much love, Jay
Anti-harassment policies are super important to me. Not for little things like people disagreeing with each other, but for like, rape threats, suicide encouragement, doxxing (especially people who dox minors wtf), hate speech, that sort of thing. That's my primary complaint with similar sites, they allow blogs that exist exclusively to post hate speech or dox people without doing anything about them.
It's very important. It sets the tone for the site. And anyone who hasn't been a victim of harassment, well, I can safely say the tide is growing and it can happen to anyone.
I got attacked for my ethnicity by neo-Nazis on Twitter recently. It's not fun. You wonder if you'll be "doxxed" or something worse. People attacking you for who you are doesn't just stop at some insults or bullying - they're aiming for a reaction, and some of them will do what it takes to get that reaction.
So it's important to have institutions - not just rules, but people willing to follow through on those rules - to back you up when you're being treated badly. And therefore the anti-harassment policy means a lot, especially considering how few other social media sites care.
The anti harassment stance is what brought me here but the thoughtfulness and generosity of the communities will keep me here. I don't think you can have one without the other and they work together to make it better for everyone.
There's always a forum for people to be toxic if they want to be. They are easy to find. But I want to be with people and talk to people with better values than that. I want this to succeed. I think it will. ☺️
It's the primary reason that I'm interested in Imzy. There are already a multitude of platforms where anti-social behavior of many stripes is tolerated, and I wouldn't see much value in creating another such platform.
As it stands, most online communities exhibit a pattern wherein behavior reverts to the mean (pun intended) as they scale up. I'm hoping that imzy can establish cultural norms, rules, tools, and a set of expectations that help communities grow larger, without growing dysfunctional.
A functional community platform has the priority over harassment protection features, in my mind. Particularly because harassment is already a nebulous term and has started to come to mean dissenting viewpoints, not just targeted abuse. Overemphasis on anti-bullying will create an unsteady atmosphere that's more about hunting down bad behavior than it is promoting creative and interesting ideas.
Define harassment in the policy and make it clear it does not mean mere dissent or difference of opinion.
Yeah. And make sure it doesn't ever expand to dissenting/differing opinions.
It depends on the mods, sad to say. I am vehemently in favor of an anti-harassment policy, but there is the phenomenon of people of trying to create a "safe space" in which all but a precious few are afraid to speak at all . That said, I'm giving the creators here the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
For a counter-example, see Twitter. If you've got a strong stomach, try following women in tech on Twitter. The comments are an absolute dumpster fire.
It's what drew me here. Trolling and harassment is somewhat of an inevitability on the internet, but social media platforms aren't designed with it in mind. Once it gets out of their control, they tend to just thrust responsibility into the hands of the users ("just block those hundreds of accounts sending you messages telling you to kill yourself!"). I hope Imzy keeps growing, and that we really do manage to create a community that's (as much as it can be) harassment-free.
Protection against harassment is completely vital. The lack of anti-harassment policies on Twitter is why I've started moving away from twitter.
It's very important to me, not as a victim of harassment but having seen communities fall apart or users suffer because of it over the years I find it unacceptable. Not as a "free speech" idea either, it purely silences people and bullies (To use a polite word to describe them) lord over others. There is the risk of people slipping through to cause trouble, especially if such an anti-harassment stance is made public, but its a risk worth taking as it'll encourage other boards to buck their ideas up.
Honestly I didn't even realize you had a "stance." Most online forums I use have some way to block or remove people. That being said, the anonymity offered by the internet allows people the behave and say things they never would in person. I've seen websites do away with comment sections entirely. It's a tricky balance to allow free speech while at the same time control for trolling. Sometimes it's difficult to tease out whether a person is a troll or just really ignorant.
"That being said, the anonymity offered by the internet allows people the behave and say things they never would in person. "
That's not what I've seen on Facebook. Also, anonymity offers marginalized people a way to speak up without having their lives destroyed.
Don't get me wrong, eliminating harassment is absolutely very important, but you need to outline exactly what harassment entails. Otherwise, Imzy will be similar to Twitter; random people getting banned for "harassment" when they really just said something someone else didn't agree with. Especially in creative communities, constructive criticism is important. Users should not have the threat of a ban looming over their heads for giving genuinely helpful criticism.
You can't really define harassment, even legally harassment is very broad.
Harrasment
What does malicious conduct entail ? It's up to interpretation.
Just because it hasn't been doesn't mean it can't be, especially since the scope is much narrower online. I personally define harassment as targeting a specific person with threatening, (unwanted) sexual, or intimidating messages. One could also define what is not harassment, and simply set precedents. Either way, it should be made clear what does and does not constitute it before attaching strong repercussions.
What does intimidation entail ? What does threating entail ? Its a never ending cycle, that's why it hasn't been narrowed down before. You just have to trust Imzy will be reasonable.
Intimidation entails repeated incidents of making someone feel as if they cannot comment/post in a community without being ridiculed.
Threatening entails telling someone you will somehow harm them, either physically or emotionally.
I do trust them, but I trusted Twitter too. At the very least, some precedents should be set, or examples given. Something concrete so that the rules are not fully open to interpretation.
Ok. Your reply makes me feel threated and Intimated. Should you be banned?
Have I ridiculed you? No. I respect your opinion on the topic, and am doing my best to discuss it with you. I am not implying otherwise by any rational means. Have I told you I would hurt you? Not at all. So no, I should not be banned, regardless of how you feel.
If you could pick out the exact quote/subtext that makes you feel intimidated, and make a case for it, my opinion should be reevaluated.
This quote made me feel belittled.
But your rules state
I feel you are harassing and belittling me. I demand that you be banned from Imzy for making me feel as if I cannot comment/post with out being ridiculed.
Why does it make you feel belittled? From my point of view, things that haven't been done previously have been done before. It is simply a statement of fact, not a personal attack. I agree with your second point, I should not have included feelings in the first place. A better way to phrase that would be a repeated incident of personally attacking someone for their opinions. Not criticizing the opinions, but the person for having them. "You are so stupid, I cannot believe you think the sky is green!" vs "The sky is not green because x, y, z. Your opinion is incorrect."
Because you are implying that I can't think outside the box , That I can't comprehend new Ideas. You should've said
I think that was a personal attack on my intelligence.
I didn't imply anything about you, though; it being my own comment implies that I think it can be done. I think my reasoning stands. It was clear, to me, it was not intended to be a personal attack. I don't see what was hostile about the way I worded it. Your version doesn't really appear different to me. Even if it were hostile, I did not repeatedly tell you you are incapable of thinking.
On another note, a good distinction to make would be that if someone is following someone else throughout the site and communities, making threats, they are definitely harassing them. That's not to say harassment could happen in one place too, but taking arguments elsewhere is a clear sign of it.
Your trying to make something that is subjective, objective. While you think you didn't insult me , others might see the personal attack. If it was that objective we could have programs moderate.
I have to respectfully disagree. I don't see anything subjective about it.
This is worrying to hear. Do you have any examples of this happening?
A huge one recently was Milo Yiannopulous' permanent suspension. He had made a comment calling Leslie Jones illiterate, after she was essentially calling for him to be banned. I think it was unkind, but certainly not harassment; if it were, than what Jones said should be considered harassment as well. He was suspended after some of his followers harassed her, but he did not direct them to do so, and Leslie actually did direct hers to attack him. A lot of other conservatives appear to be getting suspended for minor transgressions as well. I am a liberal myself, but I find it appalling that people are being silenced in such a way. If anyone wants to correct me on the details, feel free to do so. I do not want to portray something so controversial incorrectly.
Yeah, I thought this was going to be about Milo. He sicced his attack dogs on her because she had the temerity to be a black female actor. Anything she did was only in response to that.
I have seen nothing that shows it was about race, or gender. Could you please point me in the correct direction? She also previously did that (I will do my best to find the Tweet), by saying something to the effect of "Go get them" about both her haters, and critics, before this situation occurred. While I can't sympathize with those simply spewing hate at her, sending followers after people who simply did not like the film is unjustified. Yiannopulous never told his followers to do anything, though.
Have you read about the case?
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained
I see! Thank you for the link. The article does not mention Leslie's previous acts of encouraging brigading, which I also take issue with, nor her tweets about "white people". So Milo was definitely racist; is there instances of him brigading? This also brings up a great question; Should Imzy's rules discount harassment, when the person in question was previously harassed? I think there should be a consistent, zero-tolerance policy. What about you guys?
This is second hand, but someone told me they left imzy when a community banned them for arguing a point - and they weren't harassing to my knowledge. So per community, it's something to be concerned about perhaps?
There were fake tweets made. The article mentions them. Be sure that it was something she really said.
And I'm afraid that I don't agree.
An emotional reaction to being ridiculed, hurt, slandered, and attacked, and demeaned for your gender and race in a public space, with zero response from any authority?
I, personally, would not hold any victim of that accountable for their words. There's a very significant difference between provoked and unprovoked, and provoked responses...well we COULD say that a woman yelling at a guy to shut up after he called her a whore in public is harassment on her part and exactly as bad as what he did, but that would be a dick move.
No one is required to be perfect before they can be a victim. And them responding defensively does not mean that their attacker has become a victim.
I'm sure they were not fake. I saw them on her timeline myself.
I would not consider a woman yelling at someone to shut up, after being called a name, harassment. I would consider the woman telling everyone in the area talking about the incident to shut up harassment.
Of course not; but they should still face the consequences of their actions, as should whoever victimized them. I am not arguing for Milo to be unbanned because Leslie is not banned. I'm just confused as to why Twitter did not take any action towards her earlier for her own actions. I don't think anything anyone does should make them a target for harassment. What she did was a separate incident, and should be treated as such. It should not justify harassment towards her, but it should be punished, not ignored.
No you didn't, because they were literally fake.
?
I'm not claiming they're all real. I know there are a lot of slanderous ones circulating. She did have quite a few tweets referring to "white people" in a derogatory manner.
I'm not sure I can explain to you how deeply horrifying what she faced was. And I'm not sure I can fully illustrate how little anything she said or did matters in comparison to what was done to her. There is no such thing as a separate incident here. This thing started when the new Ghostbusters film was announced, not at some point in the last month.
She was the woman yelling shut up to the man calling her a whore. Except that it wasn't one man, it was hundreds of thousands of men tweeting rape threats, racist jokes, and death threats at her. For doing her job. Can you even conceive of what that must feel like, to take on that scale of harassment for doing your job?
There was, though. Prior to Milo getting involved, she picked out individuals, mentioned them, and told her followers to harass them. It doesn't negate what she experienced, which shouldn't have happened. It doesn't absolve her of what she did, either.
I do not want to minimize what occurred to her. Harassment should never, ever be tolerated by anyone, for any reason. Saying what happened was unique is misguided, imo. Other celebrities deal with the same thing, on a daily basis as well, and they don't call out particular people. They don't open others to harassment. They report them. How she acted is not necessarily worse than what was done to her, but who is going to protect the normal people, who legitimately just didn't like the movie, that she exposed to hundreds of thousands of others? Not Twitter.
Do you know what happened to me just by mentioning the film in a marginally critical light? I said "Just saw Ghostbusters. It was alright, jokes were a little lackluster.", and had people at my throat within minutes calling me racist, sexist, all for thinking it's just a mid-tier family movie. No, I didn't say anything else to provoke that. No, I don't have a personal vendetta against anyone because of it. I could care less, but that's just me. That's how I react. Others can take it seriously; others without an army of 500k to back them up. It's not OK. I can't imagine what happened to the people she mentioned that weren't blindly hating on her.
It shouldn't be black and white. Being a random person shouldn't mean you're entitled to harass others, and being a victim should not be a pass to do the same. Speaking about the situation in a snarky way? In any way? 110% fine. Calling out individuals? Bad. It creates drama. It prolongs it. It adds fuel to the fire. It hurts people who did nothing wrong.
This is a really hard problem, but one we are looking to find a solution to. Luckily we have a really great team of people much more skilled at policy writing and community management than I am working on it!
Awesome :) I wish you guys good luck, and I'm really excited to see how the site grows!
Critically important. Without that stance and policy, I'd be going back to trying to write my own...
I agree with others it didn't bring me here, but is important. Having a policy and making it known is an important part of establishing a lasting community. Enforcing it flexibly enough to protect those who need it without imposing undue conformity is a difficult balancing act. Kudos for thinking about it upfront and not as an afterthought.
For me it is the main thing that brings me here. I very much enjoy being able to have a place where I don't have to worry about mental illness triggers or be harassed by other people.
Additionally for this reason I think with the right infrastructure I think it could be a major draw for content creators who typically get harassed in other places.
I also hope that if Imzy can become a financial success it could become a point of interest for other companies to crack down on harassment and possibly even community guidelines as a whole.
Ultimately I don't expect the site to ever be able to get rid of harassment but seeing the systems that are already in place and the community as a whole, I think Imzy is going to be the closest to that in a while.
I applaud your stance. Having been an active community member on a number of websites, I have always found a way to create a group of interesting friends and insulate myself, in one form or another, from those who harass, use bad language for its own sake, belittle, bully, go on and on and on.
I don't think the responses are that well put. I think harassment is very important but that has no connection with why I'm at Imzy. I'm just here since I think this will be like a better version of reddit.
Imzy's anti-harassment stance is, imho, its most important feature - it's the one detail that sets it apart from dozens of other social media sites. While reddit, twitter and facebook are perhaps the most well-known, with livejournal and its clones/forks having another niche, there are many others - yahoo groups, various BBS hosting sites, delphiforums, nearly-dead myspace... almost none of them take a solid anti-harassment stance.
Most of the ones that do, however, are small. That's certainly worth noticing.
The key to good anti-harassment is not in the text of the TOS. All social media sites have some bits about "no harassment or objectionable content." Most of them seem to interpret that as, "if you provide us with a court order, we'll remove the offending content." Anything other than that, and you start losing members and potential members.
Imzy needs to create the kind of community it wants to be - not just make lists of what we don't want to have here. It's easy to agree "we want no harassment!" It's harder to agree on whether certain jokes count as harassment, especially if they're not aimed at members of the community that host them. It's easy to say "no racism!" It's harder to decide if that includes discussing the pros and cons of affirmative action legislation. Easy to say "no sexism, no homophobia, no anti-trans content!" Harder to decide what pictures are discriminatory vs which are acts of self-celebration.
Are the recent naked Trump statues harassment? Would a step-by-step of how they were made be welcome in a political community here, or an art community? Are photos of the statues welcome here? Is discussion of them welcome - or only welcome if it takes a particular viewpoint? (Rhetorical questions. Don't need answers for those; staff needs to figure out where they stand on that and similar issues before something becomes a site-wide drama fest.)
And: once you start saying, "only content X is allowed; content Y is not"... you start running into common carrier limitations. Curated content is not protected by common carrier protections and the site hosts become liable for what's said in their venue. (And I'm pretty sure Imzy doesn't want to be the test case.)
I don't think Imzy is trying to be a some-kinds-of-content-only community, but sorting out what's not welcome, and what is strongly encouraged, will both take serious effort. Imzy very much needs to figure out what is wanted and work to bring that here; a large body of desirable content will make it more obvious to trolls what's not wanted.
Having at least some attempt to control abuse makes the difference between having to flee a platform or being able to stay sometimes. No system is perfect, but at least TRYING to control the worst of it is vital.
Reddit has a HUGE problem when it comes to circle jerking. this site is young. keep the weeds out now and it you will have a perfect garden later.
Take a look at Dreamwidth's anti-harassment. Maybe be more robust tan that. Maybe also be better than twitter.
I am having a hard time finding their anti-harassment stuff, can you link me? I did find a diversity link that I liked!
Oh hey, Dreamwidth's diversity policies are something they've put a lot of effort into over the years. You can definitely borrow quite a lot from them.
I'm fairly certain their harassment policy is this one:
[...]
Comparing Imzy's harassment stance to Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, etc doesn't necessarily make sense. Those are HUGE websites. They're the biggest social media websites with the most users. (And afaik only facebook has been reasonably profitable). From what I understood of the situation at reddit, even if the team DID make preventing and dealing with harassment a priority, they have never had the manpower. Right now Imzy is small and curated. If it had hundreds of millions of users, I doubt it would ever be possible for Imzy to fulfill its promises.
I don't think Imzy plans on getting that big, but at some size that talk about harassment is going to be put to the test. The anti-harassment policy is a very interesting experiment, (not to mention morally laudable), but I still consider it to be untested as long as the membership is tiny and the activity low.
I was drawn to check out Imzy after hearing that there was a deliberate attempt to address the type of toxic communication that happens on other online forums, and I think having an open channel about harassment is a way to calibrate the community toward the types of language and care it would like to foster.
I honestly believe that a lot of platforms are abusing their anti-harrasment policies in order to stifle certain opinions, political viewpoints or even general freedom of speech.
I'm not too concerned with how important imzy thinks the policies are but rather how they are implemented - companies like Twitter and Facebook are bordering on tyrannical with their policies and that's one of the reasons I was looking at alternate social media platforms.
Just curious how you think twitter is abusing its policies? It seems like they are having a really hard time keeping up with any of them!
They are shadow banning people who express the wrong opinions. They've formed a trust and safety Council made up of people who all share the same political and ideological beliefs - anyone who disagrees with their opinions is branded a troll, a racist, a sexist, a transphobe etc and punished simply for believing the wrong thing.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their beliefs, even if other people find those ideas to be offensive. Having a discussion about a sensitive or controversial topic is not the same as harassment but on twitter and Facebook it's being treated that way.
People with right wing views, people who support gemergate, people who oppose feminism or the blm movement - I'm not saying I agree with any of this, I just believe everyone should be given a voice and twitter and Facebook are silencing these people and branding them trolls.
Everyone has a voice. They aren't owed a megaphone to amplify it with.
A state of not being banned is not equivalent to a megaphone - all I'm saying is everyone should be given an equal platform to speak their opinions and make their arguments, even if their ideas are dubbed to be offensive by the mainstream.
People who support Goobergrate support harassment, no matter how they want to spin it. Ban their dishonest asses.
So if someone supports gamergate but hasn't actually harassed anyone they should still be banned simply by association with the worst members of their movement? By that logic we should be banning everyone who claims to be part of any movement because I've yet to see any social or political ideology that doesn't have an extremist underbelly. Hell, let's throw religion in there too, anyone who follows a religion that has an extremist wing should also be banned according to your logic.
@Dan - if you're still following this comment thread at all this is exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about in terms of banning people going to far.
Guilt by association, equating an opinion or political stance with trolling and harassment even when an individual has taken no such action and silencing people for nothing more than thought crimes - these are the actions of authoritarians and cowards.
If people hold an offensive opinion but are not actively engaging in harassment then they've done nothing wrong and should be allowed to voice their opinion, worst case scenario - they reveal to the world that they're bigoted or idiotic and the world keeps turning.
I am still following this and we don't ban people or communities like this. There are gamergate communities on Imzy and they seem to be doing just fine. Hopefully the way we've architected the site will allow them to do what they want without affecting other communities.
But we watch everything closely!
I'm glad to hear it @Dan :) and you definitely should watch people closely, harassment should not be tolerated and I hope nothing I've said has given that impression however I think some of the replies have shown how people have pre-disposed biases towards particular ideas and can often lump everyone who holds that opinion together despite their individual actions.
I appreciate you asking for your community's thoughts on the matter and hope that I haven't come off as rude - Imzy is a young community still and I'd love to see it flourish rather than going down the dark path that I've witnessed other platforms take. My zeal on the matter simply comes from wanting to see Imzy thrive where others have failed.
I'll leave it here to avoid repeating myself too much but I'd just like to reiterate, my thoughts on the matter are that everyone should have a voice, if they use that voice to spout ignorant ideas then the only damage they cause is to themselves, once they cross the line from open discourse, discussion or debate into outright harassment then that's another matter.
Thanks again for listening to our thoughts on such an important topic, all the best.
I have voted medium because of the final sentence in the question. "Is it something that really brings you here?" But for that last question which does not apply to me, then I would have voted 'very important'. Having said that harassment is something I have never inflicted on anyone, nor thankfully have I ever been on the receiving end of it. As such it is not an issue for me personally/ However, the very thought of it appalls me and it clearly needs to be confronted as there are those who hide behind their anonymity, which is a disgrace.
Most people joined this site believing it was a certain thing, so I think the results of this poll will be very skewed/biased.
Very possible!
Despite the fact I picked option 3, I admit I have been driven away from Tumblr because of the hideous behavior I've seen there. And I've seen anoncomms on DW and LJ that were just...awful. I write fic in fandom and seeing someone on an anoncomm just tear into me and make up hideous lies and everyone pile on....honestly, it was worse than the time someone on tumblr told me to kill myself because I didn't write a positive review of a comic. Directed AT me, felt bad, but it felt WORSE to see this talk going on about but around me, with no way to respond.
That sounds terrible! What do you think tumblr should have done? (TBH, I am not a tumblr user so I'm not very familiar with their policies and procedures)
Oh what happened to me was MILD compared to the shipwars on tumblr. They never do anything. It's the free market, as far as I'm concerned: they didn't treat this problem....I never go on tumblr anymore.
Blocking or muting is the option I tend to prefer with serial harassers--wouldn't it be nice if they could just...never see your posts?
I feel that it is important to stop harassment, however there's a fine line between stopping harassment and censoring a genuine criticism/censoring free speech.
I'm glad you've made the default assumption that it's important; the proof of the pudding will come when harassment procedures actually have to be invoked, but thinking about it from the start puts you ahead of sites like Twitter (and I love Twitter) who seem reluctant in the extreme to step up and treat it as their responsibility.
Although I have never been targeted I have friends who have and I think it is very important that these people be prevented from posting their vicious and misleading comments. Can't tell you how many times I've wanted to scrub stuff posted on facebook.
Your anti-harassment stance is the very reason I chose to come here instead of Reddit.
Also, I know this site is trying to look mild. I think though that it is too mild in terms of contrasts, which raises accessibility issues.
I'd prefer the text to be darker than #556d77, or larger. Having wider columns would help too.
Yes, I think it is worth talking about. My difficulty with things like this, though, is 'who says'? I am an insane free speech advocate. I know I am. The slippery slope is ever too close. I get carried away. I do! Seriously, I do. But, I do think it is worth talking about in this context, in the community context and in the imzy policy conversations -- what is harassment when there are soo many ways to shut out what one does not want to read/hear/see. On the other hand, what is clearly intentionality meant to be hurtful/cause harm? And, as ever, 'who says'?
Not a lot of people seriously own the fact that words are actions. But they are. Very much so. Exercising free speech [words/images] is an action too. It is also worth remembering that, from a communications theory point of view, a message can't be un-sent.
In the physical world, it is usually pretty clear what harassment is. Online?
I feel like because it is so complicated, it is worth discussing.
Personally, I like the adage:
Mind ye your words, mind ye your actions, lest ye fell thy self.
I'm not at the same risk of harassment as many people, but it's still extremely important to me.
There's a mention of imzy in Joel Stein's article on trolling in this week's Time and how imzy is a response to the crap going on in reddit, etc. It's what attracted me, too. Hopefully this site will grow due to the good exposure?
My vote was for "Not important"... Why?
Because just as in all forms of human interaction and social participation, that respective participant is responsible for their own welfare and the notion of a 3rd party policing, and especially attempting to proactively police a venue of any sort will fall short of any effective management methods and goals that the particular participants can responsibly affect and implement themselves.
Take email, for example, no matter who your provider is, yourself with your own SMTP/IMAP email servers, or even Google's gmail service, etc., "YOU", the user, must still take responsibility for safeguarding yourself from all of the myriad vagaries that abound, and are ultimately bound to occur in your Inbox.
Just as in the physical, brick and mortar world of society, one must take responsibility for safeguarding themselves above and beyond what is absurd to expect from law enforcement during the course of daily routine - walks, drives and commutes, and interaction with commercial infrastructure (even in line at the ATM at your banks local neighborhood branch).
It is one thing to have a stated policy in place with corresponding consequence - it is entirely another to pretend that an organization can accept responsibility for the complete alleviation of stalking, phishing, bullying, trolling, and other, perhaps even more traumatizing or grave circumstances without the individual participants themselves taking ownership for their own, reasonable safeguarding.
No amount of robot deployments, or hiring of staff to manually monitor and intervene can prevent abuse - in real life or in the online world. The users must first be empowered with the literacy of best practices to avoid hazards, and more importantly, adhere to those best practices.
Longtime citizens of the planet and cyberspace included are well versed in how to curb abuse - axioms such as, "Don't feed the Trolls"; "Don't open or acknowledge messages from suspicious or unknown sources, and disable the preview of images (to reduce tracking and positive identification of live, occupied email addresses)"; correlate to the brick and mortar world with parallels like, "Don't walk down a dimly lit street late at night in unfamiliar territory", etc.
Safety must first be a proactive investment, and the investor must engage responsibly, before any reactive measures can be of any really effective use - if you feed trolls (answer your stalkers and list bullies, fail to block them without warning, or otherwise engage creeps), and blindly follow links to places unknown, there actually isn't much, that the proprietors who are doing their very best to safeguard you, can avail themselves with in their endeavor to protect you - just like your local police force is summarily emasculated as a protective agency if you insist on placing yourself in harms way.
An aggressive highly reactive protection and anti-harassment policy, on the part of the staff in an online community can indeed reach milestones in producing an environment of social interaction - but such is a moot point if the basic premise of personal accountability and sound judgement are not first strictly adhered to by the members of the community.
It goes without saying that specific examples really don't need to be given here - everyone already knows of many of them, and what they should do when and if it happens to them, or they haven't taken responsibility for educating themselves in effective measures against their own victimization, such as immediately reporting SPAMmers and stalkers to the authorities when they are first revealed - if nothing else, you can save someone else from their own naivety by reporting and blocking offenders and potentially dangerous profiles/accounts, while the proprietors of the environment implement various scan algorithms and other automated safeguards against fake/robot/SPAMmer accounts and other threats to the community.
Nope to the victim-blaming spiel with bonus mentions of "emasculation". Just nope.
Yes indeed, it is exceedingly easy to blame everyone else for opening that Crypto-Locker package in one's email Inbox lolz...
Yet it doesn't change the fact that one will still be forced to take ownership for becoming that victim.
Any crusade to alleviate oneself from the perils of victimization begins with prudence, and with particular attention given to cautionary measures - vulnerability commonly begins with not accepting reality, and often culminates with victimization.
Or we could have policies in place to stop the victimisers, rather than to punish potential victims.
The people who need to take ownership of victimisation are the victimisers, and those who stand by making excuses for them.
Predators (you have called them victimizers) don't generally take ownership for the plight of their victims - to them they are fortunes of conquest and the spoils of their campaigns.
One can take ownership for their own safety and that of their family, property, and securities; or they can remain in denial of what the consequence of reality imposes on those who will not base their health and welfare upon sound practice.
History is rife with unwritten anecdotal prose of forgotten martyrdom.
I do indeed call them victimisers. They are not necessarily predators--most gamergaters, for example, wouldn't call themselves predators, but they are indeed victimisers.
What you are missing, what you seem utterly blind and ignorant of, is that what you are proposing isn't that minorities and women should lock their car door when they park it. You are proposing that they should never leave the house at all, and if they do, it's their fault for not following "sound practice."
Please read some of the testimonies of victims of online harassment. Try starting in the comments to this post. Often their only crime is of not being a white cishet conservative male online, or of not shutting up and letting creeps monopolise online spaces. It is ludicrous to blame them rather than to put sensible strategies in place to discourage harassment.
This is moot, anyway. An overwhelming majority of people have voted that Imzy's policies are important to them. I doubt they will change to a victim-blaming stance soon
It's very important to me, but it remains to be seen if the community can still accomplish that without really heavy handed moderation.
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a test you had to take to post on a site like this, and you could find out if your ideas about discussion and disagreement matched up with the style of the community before joining up.
Technology does not encourage a lack of civility, but it allows people not to be civil. Anonymity, and distance may it possible to behave badly without consequence. So, we need to find a way to bring civility. It makes sense. It is the next step in the evolution of the Internet. The Internet will not achieve its full potential if harassment is allowed to hold sway.
I'm least expecting to find harassment here anyway, but so far I have not found much content that interests me or taken part in discussions. Success of sites like this has got much to do with network effects. I may find it better / more useful to engage with a larger group of people, some of whom are less well mannered, because in total I would get more positive interactions from the group because there are more people actually reading what I am saying.
Quite what harassment is is open for debate as well. In many-to-many conversations its possible that people feel overwhelmed by the volume of critical responses they get - with zero or very few of those messages actually being harassment as I understand the definition to be.
Managing notifications and making the many-to-many conversations work well for all involved sounds like a good priority. If someone feels as though they are being harassed by receiving many messages, possibly they should disengage from that platform for a small amount of time. Enabling this on imzy makes sense. I've seen cases of Twitter users claiming they faced harassment in ways which I view as avoidable. It seems like a relatively small proportion of Twitter messages are all that hateful (in terms of committing or encouraging hate crimes) or threatening in my opinion, and those need to be looked at in a different way to messages which people find objectionable.
Very often, people say wrong, controversial and simplistic things. I've especially seen this is the case on Twitter where there just is not the space to go into detail to properly back assertions made. Then there is a backlash which is also likely to be wrong, controversial and simplistic.
I think twitter is good for making short announcements. It's not good for people who feel harassed when they get many comments sent to them disagreeing with what they say. It's also not good that comments people don't like get lumped in with harassment, thus blunting the focus on effectively dealing with the most obnoxious behaviour where it is actually occurring.
I think that some sort of dealing with harassment is important, but it has to be done carefully, of course. I raise an eyebrow at the question itself, since it seems that the way it is phrased means that "community" and "harassment" go together, but I know what you mean.
Community management is important. A number of places became successful in spite of not having it, or perhaps -because- of not having it. And then they became mainstream and mainstream doesn't fly with a lack of standards. This is precisely the problem that other places like Twitter and Reddit are having. You can't be a publicly traded "alternative" platform.
But community management is hard, too. One way to be offensive is to be easily offended, so the community managers have to walk a fine line. I've run communities and know it takes work and wisdom. But it's worth it to have a place where people can discuss, not just be either in an echo chamber or a troll-fest.
To me it's not really important. But I think it's an interesting experiment and I want to see how it turns out. Perhaps it's because I haven't really been exposed to the kind of nastiness that apparently goes on on the Interwebs; I tend to pick the sites I visit wisely and don't really have time to be very involved in online communities anyway.
So my opinion on the matter probably doesn't carry too much weight.
Actually, I think I've received a lot of harassment on IMZY, but at this point I've concluded that is merely what I should expect for being the way I am. Sorry, but I'm going to continue with the delusion that there are problems that can be solved.
Can you be a bit more specific about what harassment you've received on Imzy? I think perhaps we have very different definitions of the word?
You can always hit the "chat with us" button if you have concerns.
One of your comments: "Thank you for demonstrating the intellectual bankruptcy of Trump's supporters."
There's an old phrase, 'you get out what you put in'. In the computer world, it's a bit more blunt, garbage in/garbage out. Or if you like movie quotes, from Men In Black: 'Don't START nuthin' there won't BE nuthin'".
You've stated you feel harassed. I acknowledge that. I question though if you actually HAVE been, or just feel that way.
My response to that Trump supporter was quite measured, though I admit that I sometimes (even too often) feel like adding interest to the repayment.
However, what I was thinking of as "harassment" involved responses to my earliest comments on IMZY, which involved alternative financial models. This thread was quite vague about "anti-harassment", so I felt that my response was well within its scope.
Little sense in flogging the dead horse, but I think that most organizations (including websites) respond to their financial models. I think that financial models that align IMZY with the long-term interests and desires of the members would therefore be good. I suggested several possibilities along those lines, but I think that some of the responses were quite negative enough to qualify as "harassment".
Harassment is ALWAYS a feeling. Your [stile99's] ad hominem response has some of that feeling.
If you feel I've harassed you, that pretty well answers that question. Cheers.
I feel like harassment is not always a feeling. Sometimes it could be a direct threat, no?
Someone may not feel harassed, and yet could still be in danger or actively being harassed.
Especially people who are not used to the internet culture; I imagine that subtle harassment is something others will see first before the new folks learn what it might look like.
shanen, I think I might be misunderstanding you- are you saying that you consider Imzy staff disagreeing with you about business models to be harassment?
Not at all. Disagreement is fine and natural. It's the WAY you do it that can transform honest and sincere disagreement into harassment.
I do think that some people may have crossed that line in some of those discussions, but I wasn't really paying attention to who was or was not part of the IMZY staff. Perhaps more to the point, my Internet-facing hide has become rather thick and insensitive.
This is actually trending into the sociology of small group dynamics, or even psychology. In face to face interactions, disagreements are naturally modulated and kept within socially accepted limits. In Internet discussions, things can easily get out of control. I'm a veteran of too many flame wars. (Unlike Godwin (yeah, we sort of grew up together), he enjoyed flaming and I never did. Dates me, eh?)
In a sense I think my primary emotion is regret. I think IMZY is making the same old mistakes from a slightly different perspective.
(As a concrete example of a minor regret, I just noticed another minor bug, but I think there is nothing I can do to help get it fixed.)
Yes, this should be talked up all the time. I love to come here (admittedly I'm not as active as I want to be due to shyness) because of the policy. The "hands off" approach of "that other site" is one of the reasons why it got to where it is today.
I want to be a part of a place that values respect and takes a 100% hardline stance against sexism, bigotry, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. :)
It's honestly not at all important to me. I appreciate the idea, but people are always going to find a way to be assholes on the internet. Though so long as people don't get in trouble for their opinions (if they aren't attacking people with them), I don't have any problem with the policy.
I'm hoping for some kind of moderation against, for example, people calling each others names, but I don't know how imzy would plan to implement this in an effective manner.
I'm also here from reddit and would like to see this become a friendlier place.
I think to do this it will really be up to community leaders, but we need to give them the kind of tools they need to do the type of management they want. Thanks for the comment.
Im not here to participate in a historical safety corners community. Please ban me in advance if thats the case. The fact is stalking and harassment is easy online and people need to face it as a reality not a horror.
if it isnt being done up front it can happen behind closed doors. why be afraid of your information being public record if u r innocent
It doesn't matter if people are 'innocent' or 'guilty', does it? Information will still be twisted to suit the purpose of someone intending to harass or harm another.
i think group vs individual and nuances and microaggressions are real but ya sadly manipulation on the internet is a real deal thing that needs more transparency and awareness and education and prevention
mob mentality is real etc
@Dan, the million-dollar question: if I go to a thread in a certain community, post something that goes directly against their ideology (without insulting anyone), and everyone "gangs up" on me and call me things ranging from "ignorant" to "human detritus", does that count as harassment, or is it my fault for disrupting their community?
I voted not important because it is the choice which makes the most logical sense. We all joined this community because of the idea of it being a nicer community. The importance of the Anti-harassment stance is implied.
Frankly, I think this post is something of a joke, like, "Hey peeps, it's Monday. I still believe in anti-harassment. Go Imzy!" If we are not changing things, why talk about it?
In the sense of death or rape threats sure, but people whining about someone offending their opinion don't need that power, I want to keep this site in between youtube and tumble, both offensive and polite, the classy rude
Some people need to grow a thicker skin, and those little boys hiding behind the nets anonymity grow up, or find something else to do.
I'm skeptical and somewhat afraid of it. Too often in our modern, overly PC, walking on eggshells culture, "anti-harassment" really means not going along with whatever the current SJW flavor of the month is. As the poster before me said, I'm all for prevention of and rules against doxxing and threats, but beyond that people should grow a spine. While neither of them are phrases I use myself I even understand the use of old 4-chan type memes like calling someone a "fag" on the internet is more just a way of calling them stupid than a comment about their sexual orientation (see the Louis C.K. bit about this) and saying things like "tits or gtfo" are really a defense against someone who can't stop mentioning they're a girl like it lends more credence to their point. Again, not phrases I use myself but I think people should absolutely be free to if that's their thing.
Edit: To the user that responded to me, I hope you fully realize the irony that, while I laid out a position, and why I think it (even if you don't happen to like it) and your response was basically just an un-thougt or reasoned out insult based a stereotype of what you believe me to be and actually pretty much every post in your entire history are similar style insults to people who you disagree with. The exact reason why I don't agree with an anti-harassment policy is because people who conduct themselves the way you have here abuse them when you are unwilling to consider another viewpoint and in this particular case YOU are the one who is guilty of harassment and should be removed.
"Overly PC" = "I want to act like an a-hole to people and not only not get in trouble for it, but be considered BRAVE for it."
If you want to be an edgelord, stay on 4chan.
Harassment: 'aggressive pressure or intimidation' Not a useful tactic where you're trying to grow a community...an army or a police dept maybe... but not a community of useful ideas and conversation. I'm against it and I only hang around in places that use sensible and effective (and prompt) moderation.
Thanks for asking.
Personally I don't care much for the anti-harrassment stance. I like it, but I'd be ok without it. The UI of this place is pretty good