Regaining a community

From Weaponized Social
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regaining a community

3 platforms represented in this breakout

Who owns and has responsibility for community? How to maintain community?

Every platform is unique and has its own means of establishing/maintaining/regaining community, policing, layering of roles, responsibilities, interests Wikimedia – with mine, no one can own it; no editor-in-chief of a topic area; just organically formed projects (wiki projects); loosely formed groups; organization tries to provide structure.

Is it bad when community breaks up? Sometimes part of the healing process – certain members within a community being sent off by others in a form of P2P policing.

Sometimes members falsely identify themselves as part of a community and sabotage other communities, sabotage themselves. Sometimes the platform helps them do the latter.

Graduated approach to enforcement. If not too bad and no previous violation, might be a tweet delete (and here are our content guidelines and here's your phone no.)

In some communities, enforcement varies with what violation is, e.g., first offense you're given a "timeout"; the more violations the longer you're blocked.

In some sub-communities, admins create their own rules, can remove and ban users, delete posts, etc.

"Giving ppl power engages them." The foundation has only blocked 7 ppl ever.

Lack of transparency is so people won't game the system. "There's a trade-off in transparency that's little discussed."

Balance needs to be struck in user access to tools, in transparency, agency to user base (more potential for abuse), cultural norms; "consistent response has been important for us" – consistency in itself helps regain the community

There's always room for more int'l consistency; awareness of cultural & political sensitivities so citizens in more repressive societies aren't harmed.