When a blocklist that didn't list its perspective on the issue upfront gets involved in an intracommunity dispute
Especially but not exclusively when people outside of a community get involved in intracommunity disputes
There's a fine line to walk on these issues generally—a lot of fine lines, actually, and a lot of nuance that I'm not going to get into right now—but the caution is that blocklists are very easy to weaponize here
This doesn't apply if you define your terms up front.
"I am creating a blocklist to protect against transphobia. I will block all transmedicalists/truscum as part of this blocklist" <Blocks Buck Angel> <=- Good.
"I am creating a transphobe blocklist." <six months later starts adding truscum without telling anyone about the change> <=- Problem
"I am creating a transphobe blocklist." <six months later starts quietly blocking everyone who follows Buck Angel> <=- More of a Problem
This is how you get a "blocklist that is for protecting furries from harassment" blocking half the community because there's a disagreement amongst furries.
Which again—define your terms up front, publish your criteria, and you are good to go.
This can become particularly insidious when it happens on behalf of a community.
Even where I may agree with the assessment rendered, it's incredibly dangerous to have an outsider speaking for the community and becoming an arbiter on my behalf.
Now, again, there are a lot of fine lines here and a lot of nuance.
There are sometimes fundamental intracommuntiy disagreements that have a thousand knock-on effects, or that tie into other communities in ways that are difficult to disentangle
It's hard to automate these decisions, and that's a reason to look skeptically at automated decisionmaking here.
But it also isn't hard to find examples of people saying "I, an outsider, am Protecting Trans People™ by stepping into this dispute."
They will then be met by a chorus of agreement from a group within, in this example, the trans people in their orbit.
But even when it is the right decision I am always hesitant in anything that isn't the clearest of clear cut—and/or clearly stated and documented upfront—to hand that power to an outsider.
Because it is entirely too easy to weaponize against the group in question, and intracommunity disputes by definition will not have a homogenous response even within the community.
One more, I guess, because this comment comes up basically every time this kind of thing gets discussed:
This also doesn't mean you can block <member of X group> from your blocklist.
It is about why you do so.
Blocking Caitlyn Jenner because she's a conservative ass on your blocklist that blocks conservative asses -> Go forth.
Blocking her for transphobia -> Now we're in an area where we should be defining our terms up front and being skeptical of cis people. Care is warranted.
You may still be able to justify it, absolutely, but define your terms up front, make it a point of consideration, and be cautious of the contributions of cis people.
Because it is entirely too easy to weaponize with serious consequences, and in ways that you wouldn't otherwise expect.
@hrefna
It also really needs to be stated that marginalized groups are in no way monolithic: this is one of the key points that makes persecution of us unjust. Not every member of a group has the same standards for who we want to interact with, and some of us would rather have a level of exposure just so we can be seen by these people.
That's not to say that there's anything wrong with these "safe spaces" they're trying to create. I think it's great that members of #marginalized groups have online spaces we can just exist on without being forced to deal with the blast of politics from people who don't want us to exist. I may be able to handle it, but no one should have to.
My main issue is when the people creating these #blocklist s don't want to acknowledge that they are erring on the side of caution compared to others. Exposure goes both ways: lowering exposure to the potentially hostile comes at the expense of potential reach.
@hrefna yeah, I honestly thing blocklists designed to protect marginalised people must be members of that specific group, not just allies. Allies can however play an important role in gathering intelligence, receipts, research & providing signals data to minorities that collectively make moderation recommendations that protect their own group.
@hrefna I don't think it's feasible in the way you're describing.
I could answer those questions if asked, but to define it upfront in a form that is easily shared with everyone? It's a lot of work, and then just gets bogged down in arguments over semantics when I invariably forget to address a particular style of transphobia.
I've been moderating online communities for decades, and I've discovered that overly specific rules just lead to overly specific arguments, but they also make it harder to deal with folk who wriggle through the cracks in your wording.
Our instance uses community guidelines that focus on having empathy for others and not gatekeeping other folks identities.
@ada I've also been moderating online communities for decades, I have run a widely used blocklist, and I have done this explicitly. I've seen it done well and I've seen it done poorly.
There are a variety of ways to do it, but it starts from understanding that the goal is not to rules lawyer or even create a situation where rules lawyering is possible; rather to create a situation where you have disclaimed what your goals and biases are, make decisions transparently, and document your choices
@ada This is also not about how communities are run, this is about shared blocklists that are distributed to strangers. The concerns are different and the threat models are different.
How a given instance chooses to engage with or deal with these sorts of issues is not what I am talking about here and, while there is overlap, the principles are quite different in multiple core respects.
When you have a community you can have a conversation, blocklists almost by definition can't do that.
Add comment