[kwgardner]

We actually thought the same thing about downvotes, which is why we removed them in Imzy.

One of the things we've tried to do to decrease the groupthink/echochamber is get rid of any kind of "default" communities or a universal front page or anything like that, because we believe that does lead to a lot of low quality conversations and groupthink. Instead, you only join communities you specifically opt into, and hopefully that way each community only has people who are actually passionate about those topics and discussions become more in depth and informed.

I'm curious, because I came around to Slashdot after its peak had passed--what parts of their system did you think worked best, so I can make sure we try to do the best we can on our platform?

[protomyth]

Not OP - I was on slashdot back in the day and I did enjoy the reason for the moderation on the post. I'm also a bit convinced that the rule you could moderate a discussion or post in it but not both made for an interesting dynamic. The moderate the moderator was nice too.

Downvotes do come in many forms, twitter didn't have downvotes until they added lists, then lists became a way to downvote.

[kwgardner]

Got it. Thank you for the response! It's always helpful to be able to learn more from all other platforms. We do require community leaders to enter a reason whenever they remove a post or comment, ban someone, etc., and the OP is always notified of the reason (and soon we'll be adding it so that it's visible if you have a link to the removed post/comment as well).

That's really interesting about the decision to be able to moderate or post but not both. One thing we're doing in order to be able to help with moderating the moderator is that soon there will be a public leader log that shows what actions leaders have taken in their community and why they did it, so that people can see how their leaders are behaving. Hopefully as we grow we'll be able to add more tools that help leaders manage their communities and help the communities manage their leaders. :)

[protomyth]

The ability to overthrow a dictator has worked in non-computer situations.

I'm a bit curious, is there a stated definition of harassment that you've agreed to?

[kwgardner]

This is probably WAY more than you want to know, but this is a very nuanced issue that can't be addressed briefly to do it any kind of justice, as made obvious by the headline of the article we're commenting on describing us as a "warm, fuzzy, safe space." I'll copy paste this from a post we made on our site that elaborates on our community policy where a lot of this is also located, then summarize some more:

> You are welcome to express your opinions, even if they are offensive to some users. We want honest and open discussion to happen on Imzy from all sides. However, these opinions cross the line into malicious speech when they specifically incite violence or hatred, or make people fear you will act against them in a violent manner.

> Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

> Don’t harass others. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person". Do not engage in or provide a platform for harassment of users or communities. Harassment will not be tolerated.

Paraphrasing the rest of our post so this doesn't get too long:

Things like "I think all [race/religion/gender/other demographic] are [rude opinion]" or "You’re a [rude comment here]" is okay, but "All [race/religion/gender] should [have something terrible done to them]" or "I’m going to [specific threat against an individual]" is not. And even in the "okay" examples, if you continually and repeatedly engage in these actions against an individual and follow them throughout Imzy to do so, this crosses the line into harassment.

Beyond that, there's a big gray area. We know there are things that will come up that we won't quite fit anywhere in the policies we've written, and we'll have to make some things up as we go and refine our policies and understanding as the community evolves. And yeah, we're human, and we'll probably make mistakes sometimes. But we're working hard to set a tone of transparency and fairness so that our users will always know why we're doing things and be able to give feedback on how they want Imzy to function.

[cm3]

Please do not call it a "safe space". I've witnessed occasions where any and all differing voiced opinion motivated people in the US to organize loud "where's my safe space" protests. I don't claim to understand how/why they feel that way, but looking from the outside, I cannot follow their reasoning. So, having that in mind, your use of "safe space" makes it sound like it'll attract many of those who don't want different opinions to be voiced.

[calibraxis]

Let's commit a small rudeness and step away from the airy theoretical.

- The US is so unsafe, you can get armed bureaucrats reaching into your ass in public and feeling your hemorrhoids. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/04/01/...)

- It's so unsafe, mobs of sociopathic videogamers can "SWAT" your family by calling a SWAT team to your house. (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...)

- It's the world's biggest jailer of its own populace; for many a police state.

So some ensure "safety" for themselves by having all the state's violence on their side of the debate. I personally get to be pretty safe. But others want a little safety too, which is a prerequisite to freely express their opinions.

To be clear: we're not talking about shutting down dissenting opinions on math. We're talking about shutting down the violence that supports one side's mediocre, backwards ideas. No wonder why some struggle to maintain that lopsided advantage.

[kwgardner]

We've actually never used the words "safe space" to describe ourselves, fwiw. It's an extremely polarizing term that has evolved to mean very different things to people, and the image it triggers in most people's minds of SJWs and crazy trigger warnings all over the place and no dissension allowed ever is not what we're trying to build. Those were the author's words.

[cm3]

Your list of "things like ..." misses "belief" and probably more.

[kwgardner]

Yes, agreed. It's impossible to be totally comprehensive. That was meant as an example of the types of things you should not persecute people for.