I would have said that this was fairly simple:
DO NOT
- Endorse or call for violence against anyone, public figure or private blogger, not even in jest. Claiming hyperbole, humor, or poetic license/justice is no excuse.
Until two days ago, when I flagged a comment that I thought clearly came under that umbrella.
A French Revolution is in our future, unless the Supremes sing a real honest song.
A day later, I was still replying to comments on that one, that were justifying the recommendations it was given (it maxed out at 32 recs), and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.
Some background — there have been several references to the French Revolution, and both verbal and image references to Madame la Guillotine, as well as the necessity for lynching Donald Trump, over the last week, and they seem to be increasing, along with pushback in the comments by anyone who ran afoul of moderation of their comments in this area.
I am going to offer a slight modification, and I would like to get some feedback on my reasoning here. I’d really like to get some from kos, but it’s long odds he won’t even see this, so I’ll take it wherever it comes from. I may change my mind, or not, but I figured it was worth asking about.
Ready? The comment:
A French Revolution is in our future,
unless the Supremes sing a real honest song.
The primary pushback was that this was a valid prediction, and thus a legitimate description of reality, rather than an endorsement of violence, and so it should not be flaggable under the Rules of the Road.
Note the caveat: “unless the Supremes sing a real honest song.” In the context of the diary, it translates to “unless SCOTUS refuses to let Trump block Congress,” which is a real-time, short-term result of a current problem.
This comment was neither endorsing nor calling for violence; it was doing something that I think may be even worse — attempting to justify violence before the fact.
This is what Trump does. This is what people who think democracy is a failed institution do. People who have given up on the non-violent remedies of this democracy because Trump is being an ass about them.
My proposed modification:
DO NOT Endorse, call for, or attempt to justify violence against anyone, public figure or private blogger, not even in jest. Claiming hyperbole, humor, or poetic license/justice is no excuse.
Comments?
There is probably little use in pushing for an update to this rule at this time. In general, my feeling is that the people who favor enforcement do not particularly need the additional language, and those who don’t will not be more likely to agree with moderation if the language is included.
As one point of the exercise was to see whether moderation could be made easier for both the people who are attempting it and the comments upon which it is being attempted, I have to count this a null outcome, though worth trying. YMMV.
Siab.