- beautiful
- Speck Fitted
- PA Job Numbers Out, The War On Unemployment Insurance, and Inequality
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
"Policing" communities, online and otherwise
Submitted by jennifer on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 8:48am.
Discussions of the recently-filed lawsuit against the Domelights message board by African-American police officers reveal the problems that led to the suit in the first place. Exhibits 1 and 2 are the responses to Dan's post announcing the suit and Domelights' own thread on the subject.
There's a point that I think gets lost in the back and forth over whether anonymity in Internet posting is desirable or not (setting aside that there will always be anonymous forums if people desire them; even China struggles to control the whole Internet). What gets lost is the larger question of what is necessary for a successful community.
Particularly in locally-oriented web sites, there's a direct interface between the anonymous online world and people's real lives. We are talking to our neighbors, about our jobs and politicians and teachers, and most of the time, reporters are listening in. As Dan coincidentally brought up just before the Domelights suit was filed, there's one way to negotiate all this--effective moderation.
The "free speech!" minions have died down somewhat recently, but when I talk to people about community blogs, this is the first thing I tell them: If you want a community, you cannot have a bland, non-moderated blog. Period. It will fail, or disintegrate, or give you the Athenian School known as Philly.com comments. That is especially what, in general, big media types never get. Anonymous internet message boards (especially about politics) will, and have, generally failed.
I've been thinking about this, and see moderation as a necessary part of these ongoing conversations in online communities. Although sometimes moderation involves suppression of communication (through deletion or blocking), mostly it's a back and forth where rules are explained and people try (and fail, and try some more) to adapt to them. And it fosters more dialogue rather than less, by overcoming tactics that people use in argument to shut down others.
The lack of such moderation on Domelights and the Philly.com comments section (and at times Phillyblog) makes me sad, because to me it reflects a lack of responsibility to the communities to which the site creators or managers belong. There is a great power in moderation to shift norms, which is the flip side of how non-moderated sites seem to collapse towards the uglier parts of people's ids. We can talk about the Domelights suit as a straightforward claim of employment discrimination. But the response to the suit reveals a lack of community among officers who need to work together and trust each other. And a lack of concern about that lack.
And one of the clearest expressions of that lack of community is the claim of 'reverse racism'. Now is a scary time economically, and some white people may feel further displaced as they watch people from ethnic minorities take new positions of power (president, Supreme Court justice). But come on. All 'racism' is not the same. White people have not experienced generations of exclusion and discrimination. Context matters. To call 'reverse racism' whenever white people are treated differently than minorities, or when minorities are given preferences of any kind, shows a complete lack of interest in or engagement with the lives of fellow community members that differ from your own. So quit it before you end up like the obsolete old men Frank Rich depicts in his Sunday column on the Sotomayor hearings.
On a completely unrelated
On a completely unrelated note, the PPD wants to increase neighborhood beats and make people feel more comfortable with officers. This kind of shit doesn't really help.
Internet is big enough for different kinds of conversations
YPP is a very effective example of one kind conversation, the kind takes place between generally like-minded people interested in sharing thoughts, opinions and ideas. A certain set of standards, a certain level of courtesy is artfully maintained here, thanks to Dan and the other moderators.
That's only partly because most of us agree with each other -- and thus respect each other -- to a certain degree.
The intelligent and judicious hand of the moderator is necessary, and on YPP, the moderator's hand is light.
Because YPP is civil enough for participants to respond thoughtfully to each other, the conversation can be generative. The whole can be greater than the individual parts. People can listen to each other, learn from each other, and produce outcomes and ideas that are better-informed and superior to those they started with.
YPP is a paradigmatic example of a well-maintained online community of choice.
But larger, more heterogeneous communities exist in the real world, and I'm of the opinion that it's worthwhile to have places where they can be represented in the online world too, even if they're more problematic, and far more likely to fall apart.
I pretty much never participated in or posted on Phillyblog because I didn't want to deal with the racism. But I read it off and on, and in a less direct way, I appreciated that it was there.
It was something of (I emphasize something of) a reality-check regarding how my neighbors in the larger, more heterogeneous -- specifically more racist -- community of Philadelphia felt about things.
I don't like that I share a community with racists. But since I do, I want to know about it, even when knowing what other members of my community think is painful.
Phillyblog was frequently painful. It was less a conversation than a public square/free for all among a bunch of loud soapbox advocates and (more frequently) denouncers.
Good ideas and useful outcomes rarely if ever are directly generated by such forums. Their utility is limited. It's important to remember too that such forums don't necessarily accurately represent the larger offline community. Bullies and other angry people -- frequently those who believe their opinions are somehow "underrepresented in the media" -- are most likely to participate in such forums.
But all that said, Phillyblog achieved something, even if it that thing was relatively limited in its usefulness. It represented a wider diversity of opinion that -- however un-representive-- is nontheless contained within the large, heterogeneous community that I live in. I appreciated that. It allowed a window not only into what people who think differently than I think, but -- when the post-ers connected their opinions to their observations of life -- why they think as they do.
Sometimes merely knowing the existence of a body of opinion among a community is useful.
In my opinion, we're better off as a (larger Philadelphia) community knowing of the existence of the racism on domelights because that racism is thus present among some Philly cops, and that such racism -- at least among some Philly cops -- is deemed acceptable.
Sure, that racism makes us sad, angry, and ashamed.
But it's useful to know of its existence.
Knowing about it allows the possibility of dealing with it, and thus the possibility of making things better.
I agree generally
but without getting too theory-y, I think that both ideally and in practice, moderation is not necessarily singularly repressive. And like in the real world, where those 'pure' expressions of racism or whatever else occur online, I think engaging them is desirable. A site in which other views (say, minority, or non-racist) are marginalized or effectively excluded is just as much of a construct as an actively moderated one. And I think this holds particularly true when the forum is one that is ostensibly broad or open, as with the examples we are talking about here: the website of the city's daily newspaper, a website for the police force that serves all Philadelphians, and a message board for all Philadelphia neighborhoods (which I found to be very useful for connecting me to my immediate neighbors).
I mean, just take Domelights
The potential community of all Philadelphia police officers is diverse. There are minority police officers, and LBGT (yes, T) police officers. I think what the existence and content of that complaint says is that minority police officers were being effectively excluded from the online police community. The fact that the site did not attempt to engage or limit racism is an abdication of responsibility to and for non-white, non-majority, members of the police community.
I guess I see the Internet as more valuable as something that is a potentially transformative mode of communication (bringing me into conversation both with people that live on my block and people who socially I'd never encounter), than in its reflective mode.
A Question of Law
Sam Durso, above, is absolutely right that free speech, even free offensive speech, serves a valid educational purpose to the broader society. I participated in phillyblog, among other reasons, to better understand views of my fellow Philadelphians, and, where possible, to lead them away from their obsessions with racial differences. At times, I felt confident that I succeeded in that goal, as I led conversation away from paranoid fears and into constructive dialogue.
But the the Guardian Civic League Lawsuit is more about the use of domelights than its exact content. If significant numbers of officers paid on an hourly basis were using significant numbers of paid hours to post on domelights, then domelights was becoming at least a quasi-official governmental activity. That domelights was apparently run by active officers would strengthen that conclusion.
The fact that an illegal activity may be conducted through speech does not make it a legal activity. It is illegal to offer or solicit a bribe, to threaten a rape, or make any other terroristic threats. More to the point of the lawsuit, it is illegal for an employer to tolerate the use of words, symbols, or practices to racially or sexually harass employees.
When an activity rises to the level of harassment is decided on a case by case basis. When a supervisor asks an employee he supervises for a date for the first time, that is OK. If the employee's rejection of a request for a date is phrased solely in terms of the inconvenience of a specific time, then a second request would be OK. But if it becomes clear to a reasonable person that the employee has absolutely no desire to date her supervisor, at some point the repeated requests for dates becomes harassment, for which the employer is liable.
According to the brief filed, the Philadelphia Police Department had received large numbers of complaints indicating that large numbers of police felt harassed by the combination of the content of Domelights and its ubiquity in the police workday. The suit argues that the Philadelphia Police Department and the City of Philadelphia are thus creating a hostile work environment discriminating against African-American police officers.
Unless their are facts that seriously undermine the premise of the Guardian Civic League lawsuit, the City of Philadelphia would be well advised to settle the lawsuit. Such a settlement should include a ban on police personnel making racially hostile internet postings, discussing racially hostile internet postings, or running any message board or website with racially hostile internet postings. The Police Department should conduct training so that all police personnel know what racially hostile internet postings are.
Someday, Philadelphia has to move beyond race, beyond discussions in which groups of people are judged by their most shameful members. I have no doubt that there is far less racism today in every neighborhood in Philadelphia, and every community in the Philadelphia suburbs, than there was 40 years ago. A lot of today's racism seems like the last gasp of a dying culture more than anything else.
But no racism is desirable, and racism among people pledged to enforce the law in a manner that gives equal protection to all citizens is completely unacceptable. If settling the Guardian Civic League lawsuit is not a top Nutter Administration priority, it should become one immediately.
I agree, Rep Cohen
a hostile work environment in general, and those cops who represented themselves as racists specifically, have to be dealt with.
The racist cops who posted on domelights, and those who tolerated or encouraged racism on domelights, should be outed and dealt with properly and immediately. That will rid the police of some racists, but more importantly it will send the message that the City doesn't tolerate racism among its cops.
Obviously, that salutary effect is likely to occur only once; if punished, racist cops likely will stop posting as such.
In speech, when given an either/or, I generally take both
So -- as long as we're talking media choices, not the way people think -- I prefer having both:
I want sites where real generative conversation can take place, and I want sites where idealogues, advocates, and haters can shout their capitalizing, boldface-ing fingers off.
I agree, of course, that a YPP-like community where cops of diverse backgrounds and opinions can share ideas should exist.
Dan's right to call for such a site with a moderator who maintains standards.
He's also right to identify the hate and racism on domelights as bullshit.
But if domelights didn't exist, it's unlikely we'd be having a conversation about racism on the Philly Police Force, and that's one reason we're better off for domelight's existence.
If we were talking about the way people think, then we'd have to get into whether internet censorship is an effective tool for changing opinions, a subject I approach with skepticism.
Hm
I am trying to figure how much of the difference of opinion comes down to my greater inclination to paternalism :)
But also, re: media choices
Yes of course there should be 'both,' all types, whatever. And like I said, even if that wasn't normatively desirable, it'd be inevitable. It's the Internet.
But I also think it is desirable for broad-based sites like some of those we are discussing to seriously consider moderating comments towards the end of increasing inclusiveness. I'd be interested to hear more of Dan's thoughts, but some of mine were influenced by the "Autoadmit" nonsense (for which we have to thank my former classmate's supposed free speech essentialism, and the fact that law students' worst natures are apparently pretty close to the surface).
Even offline, speech happens
that in purely practical terms, we can't control. And, yes, I think, overall, that's a good thing.
But I agree with you that moderators of general interest sites like Phillyblog and its replacement might be encouraged to explore ground rules that could increase participatory inclusiveness and dialog and that wouldn't ban specific kinds of opinions, as long as their expression is legal.
Re: Autoadmit and those types of controversies, even Berkeley-style Free Speech advocates don't think free speech means speech without consequences.
Threats and injurious lies -- for example -- should come with costs.
Interesting conversation.
Interesting conversation. Here are a few thoughts:
First, do I think it is useful to see all the rampant racism that boils up when people get anonymity? I suppose. It is rare these days to hear people (Senate judiciary committee notwithstanding) who will say racist things in public. That is why the Valley Pool thing was so crazy- because no one thought that would be out in the open. So, I think it is useful, at least for the "America is post-racial!" crowd to read.
Second, every site that at all wants to have any broad community needs moderation, whether that be from an administrator, or through some community process or norms. That includes blogs, forums, street corners, and police stations. The reality is that although I would like YPP to be a 'safe place' for progressives, many people don't post on here, because they find the site too abrasive, too rough and tumble, etc. So, to have an 'open forum' where people can be total assholes isn't really an open forum, because invariably you are forcing off a ton of people who can't deal with it. Phillyblog, especially in some of the neighborhood forums, had a definite usefulness. But, especially as it went on, it necessarily excluded people who didn't feel comfortable interacting with racists.
So, in terms of moderation, you don't have to say "Hey, this is a site for progressives to interact," but you do have to decide what your goal is. If you want a site where people can, for example, talk to their neighbors, or talk to fellow cops, and you tolerate racist assholes, then maybe what you really want is a site where white neighbors, or white cops, can interact... Because I really don't think you can have both. It is a big internet, full of tubes, and everyone finds their spot. But when you choose to not exclude a group of people, you will always be excluding another group, which in my optimistic world view, is a much larger one.
Agreed: you're always choosing whom or what you exclude
on sites, no matter what, since behavior -- when it dissuades participation -- acts as a form of exclusion.
I agree.
Sites that ban racist content exclude racists, and sites that allow racist content exclude those who can't deal with interacting with racists.
Yet, to me, even if we stick specifically with this one subject, coming to useful conclusions is complicated. On a purely ideological level, saying racism is wrong is better than saying racism is acceptable; and doing so certainly feels better to most of us. Obviously, I'm not a moral relativist, especially on this subject: racism is the worst stain on this country's history, existence, and -- sorry to get too overly-dramatic -- soul.
Yet racism persists, and like a lot of people on the left, I'm interested in whether -- in general -- banning outright its expression on internet sites has the effect of making it wither away, an outcome we on the left want, or simply lulls people into thinking we're more post-racist than we really are, a social situation that can eventually lead to outcomes we don't want, such as when people on the right start trying to remove safeguards against racism that we on the left know are still necessary.
Going back to how all this should affect speech and sites, I guess what I conclude is that when and where such controversy exists -- whether it's re: racism, sexism, classism, a woman's right to choose, whatever -- some scenario like this plays out, and the moderator and the participants on internet sites make their decisions, and some people are always left out.
However, by habit I guess, I end up concluding that when there's a problem or a controversy that is especially horrible or difficult, not in a workplace where people have to be civil in order to get along, but in society where they don't always -- no matter how horrible or difficult -- it's worth the effort to try to get it out into the open, where people can hopefully eventually deal with it, and if they can't, then they at least have to deal with the fact that the problem exists.
Whether internet sites ever can be places where such difficult problems can be dealt with fruitfully, I don't know. Yet, even when the most destructively noxious experiments blow up, as Phillyblog did, I appreciate the knowledge and the effort.
And prefer, of course, to share information and plot strategy here, on a safe and civil site.
This is mostly what I was aiming to say
Also, btw, the Autoadmit thing was mostly not about the threats--which were obviously a problem, though somewhat isolated--but what it showed about the creation and effective fostering of a truly virulent community. And one that also had a pretty direct interface with people's real lives.
Yeah, we probably agree mostly/disagree a little re: Autoadmit
Case by case we probably agree on most, if not all, of the problems that occurred on Autoadmit.
I'd guess, however, that I'm more inclined to attack those problems case by case and to weed out illegal and virulent behavior affecting people's real lives that way, relying more on prudent adjustments; perhaps you'd be more inclined to adopt more sweeping prohibitions and conclusions than I, re: the community's fostering virulent behavior -- which at times I think it was -- and the community's merely reflecting virulent and present aspects of society -- which I think at times it was also.
We have pretty similar goals but we differ a bit on the need/effectiveness of censoring/banning things in order to achieve those goals.
For the record
I never said annnnything about sweeping prohibitions.
Also for the record
I post daily on a large message board with literally zero moderation for content, so I recognize that there is not one exclusively desirable model.
But Dan's comment from the other day sparked my interest in thinking about some of this in reference to locally-oriented sites.
Interesting discussion, sorry I missed it
well not entirely. I think it comes down to what domelights.com wants to be. If it wants to be "the site where cops and various racists who are not really cops but who like to 'show support' or pretend to be cops while acting like racist blowhards" then an anonymous non-doderated format is the way to go. Thats not to say there are not racist cops, but even its devotees admit its worst racist tirades probably are fed by "police supporters" who are most interested in feeding their agenda of racist foregone conclusions than talking about the day-to-day concerns of officers, from what I have read. But since being a police officer is all about being in a position of authority and having their paycheck's paid by the public and hence serving the entire public's interests, then domelights should not be anonymous or unmoderated if really aims to place for real police concerns. Domelights.com should just change its name to racistpolicefetishist.com and be done with it - and officers should be held responsible for posting on duty and for comments made their. Maybe racistpolicefetishist.com can have a photo galley for wannabes to dress up in their pretend uniforms and act out all their pseudo-sexual racist power fantasies to their fullest. I'd bet they would make a lot more on web advertising. ;)
Work should be work, and expressing opinions off duty should be expressing opinions (even ignorant hateful ones) and the Guardian's are right to call PPD to task for not cracking down on one impinging on the other.
But if domelights.com wants to be a place where useful discussion of work related issues for police officers to happen then they should think hard about what it will do to moderate their board to serve that goal.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
A-
mazing.
i like free-wheeling free speach.
I consulted domelights.com occassionally because some of what was posted there reflected for better or worse what real officers thought. That's useful information. Their current strategy - to limit membership and limit public access as opposed to step up and call out inappropriate comments (and yes comments calling for "gang raping" the head of the Guardians are simply not appropriate, i.e. no actual cop should stand for such comments - period - particularly about another officer) - will kill their site. Members of Internal Affairs will be given permission to join the site anonymously and investigate officers using the site. Use will plummet and the crazies will take over - even more so than currently.
McQ should have kept it public and pardon the pun "policed" his site better. The current strategy will make the comments worse and not protect him from legal liability if indeed he participating on the clock. It will make the comments worse and more of a liability (rightly) in the court of public opinion.
I have more patience for anonymous forums than many but I have also never shied away from calling out stupidity either. If you allow anonymity, the community has to take take responsibility for calling out stupidity and racism when it rears its ugly head.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Although the site is now closed to new members
Here's a quick reminder of the Terms of Service from domelights.com that their own moderators were apparently selectively choosing not to enforce.
Now if I ran this site and some idjit is posting about how a fellow officer should be "gang raped", I think it might be time to revoke that person's anonymity forthwith, particularly if they are themselves a police officer.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Haha
And it continues in the Geoffrey Canada interview.