This to discuss rule number 6. If you have not visited the first phase thread, go here now and cast your vote on the open items.
Here is rule 6 and the poll results, which did not meet the 70% threshold to ratify and was a pretty even split. This is the only rule that had ZERO voters think it was not needed.
Let’s get into it.
Probably fair for the people who want to discuss it to state what their concerns are. I suppose “indirect” and “veiled” are subject to judgment, so a mod could take something that’s not a threat and call it a veiled threat and inappropriately sanction somebody because of it; but for this rule (and for rule 7) it may be productive to start with clear cut cases and work our way into the boundaries of the gray area posts, rather than start with the gray area posts and peter out. I guess maybe the severity of the violence that is threatened may also be an issue?
I take this as a standard forum rule I see on every discussion forum, so we all agree that the most immediate, possible actionable threats are to be moderated aggressively.
No, that sounds like a peaceful protest.
We could specify that advocating for non-violent harassment of public figures as a form of protest is acceptable discourse.
All mods in agreement? All mods+admin in agreement?
That’s a great question. I’m not inclined to support handing this over lightly, but I also think we should certainly do it when it’s appropriate. Like as an extreme example, if someone made a specific threat of violence against someone else that we took seriously, we should report them and should turn that stuff over if/when requested by authorities.
Yes, yes and yes. And in the interest of full clarity based on my peace of mind, morals, principles, etc, if people don’t want mods turning that information over in those situations, then I’ll be stepping down as a mod. Not trying to be dramatic here, and I’m a big believer in right to privacy from search, etc, but there are lines and when clearly over the lines, the first mod who sees that stuff should report it and provide that info ASAP.
So having thought about it a bit, unanimous consent may not be a good idea because it would waste time. We’ve seen numerous examples of mass shooters posting online and carrying out their killing in less than an hour. We don’t need to be waiting for a mod to login to agree that turning them in is the right move when minutes could literally be the difference in saving lives.
Of course it’s absurdly unlikely we’re ever in that exact situation, but this is the time to put a policy in place so we should discuss it and have a policy.
I voted for more discussion bc it’s a powder keg issue and obviously warranted something beyond a rubber stamping.
The whole ‘notify law enforcement’ makes me squeamish but I guess it’s obvious so whatever. I’d prefer that line not in there bc of the tone it sets fwiw.
One is illegal and the other is not.
Presumably the one that resulted in jail sentences.
I was being trite because it seems pretty clear to me that all those scenarios are OK to encourage people here to attend because none are clearly going to descend into unavoidable criminality, iow that one can participate in those events without taking part in criminal activities.
The bigger problem here will come if/when Trump gets re-elected and changes the laws of assembly, but hopefully that won’t happen. If it does I say it’s fine (necessary, even) to break laws that are unjust.
Exactly.
Technically, wanting to give noogies to Trump until his toupet falls off is violent but hardly a rule breaker imo.
As long as the organizers were not calling for violence (or washing their hands of it wink-wink nod-nod), then no, they would not be banned.
I haven’t followed the events in Bolivia closely, but assuming it’s similar to what went on in Venezuela there was a mix of peaceful protest, violent protest, and peaceful protests turned violent under duress. Since a blanket “Take to the streets,” call could mean any of the three, I would be okay with it and perhaps ask for clarification. I don’t know the details there, but if peaceful protesters took to the streets and the government started firing on them or something, I don’t have a problem with them defending themselves and fighting back. You’re now talking about a civil war. If you show up to a protest and a civil war starts, my morals don’t say you have to stand there peacefully and take it.
Also, Trump refusing to accept the results could change things. At that point I’d be calling for a large, peaceful protest at/surrounding the White House that does not back down to any calls to disperse by anyone.
I agree with you here. We could put some statement about the difference in calling for legal/illegal violence in the rule, but really we’re talking about rule #7 at this point, and the forum can always revisit it later if Trump starts eating babies. My thought in general is that you don’t call for violence unless peaceful options have been eliminated. So, like, if someone wanted to violently storm a detention center due to the inhumane family separation policies, I could understand their point, but I think their call is out of line and should be moderated because they could try peaceful options first.
So the reply to that is going to be something like, “But cuse, that means you do accept calls for violence under some situations… You’re just trying to impose your line on where it becomes acceptable on the forum!”
Well, we’re arguing about where the line should be and I have strongly held beliefs on it, so I’m expressing them. I also think it’s best to put a more cautious rule in place now, and then shift it if/when needed with the consensus of the forum. If we get to a point where it becomes acceptable discourse, at least we’ll know that 70% (or 67% or 60%, whatever the threshold is) is in agreement, rather than 31% dictating it to everyone. This is why I’d encourage people who are unsure about these rules to vote on the side of being more cautious and strict about violent rhetoric/threats/whatever the topic. If you change your mind later, it can be moved that way…
We’re probably never going to adopt a stronger rule than right now, though, unless something terrible makes the forum re-think it, and we all hope that doesn’t happen.
Commenting on some posts above:
Mods are not the ones that should be tasked with (allowed to) calling law enforcement as “officials” of Unstuck Politics website. That needs to be solely the purview of Admin.
I think we should remove the language about notifying law enforcement from this rule.
I agree that we should add language allowing posts pertaining to peaceful protests and other acts of non-violent civil disobedience.
It seems I used the wrong word. I am thinking back to 2p2. Mat was the “admin” of that site. He was the one who contacted law enforcement/social services in the few occasions that such an action was relevant. As you know 2p2 mods were volunteers tasked with keeping forums running smoothly. Mods would have/should have/do have absolutely nothing to do with contacting law enforcement/social services.
Maybe there is no person/entity on Unstuck Politics who plays the role of Mat here (insert joke here). I guess it is likely that nobody here should ever contact law enforcement “on behalf of Unstuck Politics”. I am perfectly fine, indeed giddy, if such were the case.
I think the opposite is true. Rule 6 is the one that deals with standard internet boiler plate language prohibiting threats and incitement of violence. That is part-and-parcel of many internet website rules (TOS).
Our Rule 7 is the “new” rule that some people have chosen to sponsor dealing with “discussions of violence”. I would guess that no other websites have such a rule (everything germane is already covered by their equivalent of our Rule 6).
So I think we can/should/will reach agreement on language for Rule 6. But I think we will have a much more difficult time coming to any agreement on Rule 7.
At a minimum, we should comply with US law and box any direct threats or incitement of violence.
I think a hard “No doxxing” rule makes sense. There was zero tolerance for it in 22 politics, though it sounds like OOT was different.
Thanks for setting me straight on role of admin here at UP.
I will comment on one other somewhat related issue. I still hold out hope that we embrace if not fully implement the ideal of community moderation. This current process that JT and others are spearheading seems to be a step in that direction.
While in one sense it is true that moderators will have power over what content is allowed/disallowed, I hope that it is clear that this power originates with the community at large and is manifest via a set of community-derived rules.
So let’s say some new account comes on and announces that they’re going to go shoot up a WalMart or something, you don’t think that as a mod I should be allowed to call law enforcement and turn over their e-mail and IP address? I’m supposed to tell them to get a warrant, while this poster is potentially on their way to go commit a mass shooting?
Same question, but the account is a reg. Should it be handled any differently?
IMO both of these are clear - you turn over the info ASAP and try to save lives.
There are no Mats and there are many Mats. But none of the Mats here are at all like the Mat there. So really, there are no Mats.
It’s unlikely it’ll ever come to that, I hope, but regardless of whether it’s “on behalf of UP” or not, it should be something a mod (or regular poster) can do on their own if necessary. And if the mod deems it necessary, they should be free to turn over whatever info they feel is justified if there is an imminent threat.
Maybe we automatically and permanently demod anybody who ever does it, no questions asked, no vote, so that they damn well better think it’s necessary… Maybe we automatically have a recall vote if they do it. But regardless of whether it’s “on behalf of” or “Hey I am a moderator on this website and this happened and here’s some info,” its’ something that needs to be doable.
That power can also be revoked by the community at any time. Perhaps we should clearly set up a process for that.
Wow, we just have a different world view regarding internet forums, law enforcement, and mods.
I DO NOT WANT any mod on UnstuckPolitics to be able to use their personal judgment when reading posts to be able to call law enforcement and provide IP and email information of posters to law enforcement. Period. Full stop.
I am at a loss for words so I’ll just leave it at that.
You have got to be shitting me. You’re telling me if someone not only threatens a mass shooting, but says they’re on their way to do it, we should just shrug and be like, “Welp, it’s the Internet, what can you do?”
Like I’m in disbelief that numerous people want to require a warrant to turn over info for someone who has said they’re on their way to carry out a mass shooting.
If the community at large feels that way, it’s everyone’s right, but I’ll be peaceing the fuck out and I don’t just mean as a mod.
That’s some insane bullshit imo. We live in a world where numerous people have given warnings online before carrying out mass shootings. To make the policy that we will require warrants in such a situation rather than volunteering that info is reckless, and this is for what? Because we can’t trust a community-selected mod to use good judgement and only turn over such info voluntarily in extreme cases of urgent threats to someone’s/public safety?
And rather than trust someone the community has chosen, we’re going to gamble with potentially dozens of lives? Holy shit people.
I mean, who the fuck are we? I’m astonished.
This seems like a very unlikely scenario and anyway UP shouldn’t have anyone’s real info.
