Discussion about how certain problematic content/users should be moderated Discussion

[Admin]

The origin:

@SFBayFMT5's entire time on this forum has been spent spreading FUD, misinformation, disinformation, and muddying the waters by using logical fallacies such as red herrings. He's been warned about it numerous times and has had several posts removed. So most forum members are not aware of the full extent of his behavior.

Brandolini's Law: Debunking false claims requires ten times more effort than creating them. Therefore, it is troll behavior, and not a rational demand, that a person continually spends time debunking misinformation & disinformation, especially when it's a constant spew from a single member. And especially when it appears to be done in an effort to force me to provide details that I've said I will not.

Given that most social media is a "free-for-all", there's no stopping people who want to use the internet to spread misinformation and disinformation. Changing the title is a mild and appropriate tool a mod/admin can use when users decide to take a discussion in that direction.

If you have suggestions for other ways a mod/admin should deal with such a situation, feel free to use the feedback forum: https://forum.humanmicrobiome.info/forums/rules-info-feedback/

Click to shrink...

 

[IsthmusSIBO]

Addresing the title change for the thread “Silly, useless, erroneous, fictitious, and nonsensical discussion about the future of HumanMicrobes.org and FMT“, previously known as “Discussion about the future of HumanMicrobes.org and FMT”.

Brandolini's Law: Debunking false claims requires ten times more effort than creating them. Therefore, it is troll behavior, and not a rational demand, that a person continually spends time debunking misinformation & disinformation, especially when it's a constant spew from a single member. And especially when it appears to be done in an effort to force me to provide details that I've said I will not.

Click to shrink...

Michael, you present yourself as an intelligent individual willing to enter into debate to further the increase of knowledge for every party involved in the conversation.

I can’t speak or defend SFBay’s behavior in other threads, nor his intentions so I will no longer focus on that, but what is to me the more relevant problem.

Given that most social media is a "free-for-all", there's no stopping people who want to use the internet to spread misinformation and disinformation. Changing the title is a mild and appropriate tool a mod/admin can use when users decide to take a discussion in that direction.

Click to shrink...

You also present yourself as impartial, or at least that you are exclusively in the side of truth. But that title change is not impartial.

It is not appropriate, it is emotional. If you are so dejected of trying to correct misinformation because it is so vast, then why change the thread’s title? It is not a tool for truth, it was a tool to express your frustration. A polite way to insult, not to correct.

Not logical. That is my problem with it. Insulting people politely won’t make them stop, if anything it will rile them into opposing you further. As I have often observed both in real life debates and in social media.

It is not a tool for debate.

My advice, if you are willing to take it, is to keep being impartial and not let your frustration about being the topic of discussion trump the impartialness you desire to show when managing this forum.

 

[IsthmusSIBO]

Brandolini's Law: Debunking false claims requires ten times more effort than creating them. Therefore, it is troll behavior, and not a rational demand, that a person continually spends time debunking misinformation & disinformation, especially when it's a constant spew from a single member. And especially when it appears to be done in an effort to force me to provide details that I've said I will not.

Given that most social media is a "free-for-all", there's no stopping people who want to use the internet to spread misinformation and disinformation. Changing the title is a mild and appropriate tool a mod/admin can use when users decide to take a discussion in that direction

Click to shrink...

Speculation can become misinformation, but it doesn’t have to be. Nor is it always done with ill intentions.

Your experience with bad actors where misinformation has been used to harm you has evidently lowered your tolerance for any type of conversation that can potentially turn into misinformation and that is expected. But that, in turn, has made the flow of truth in this forum to be ultimately based on your own judgement alone.

Users aren’t allowed to delete posts past a certain time but you, as judge/jury/executioner, can whenever you want. We are at the mercy of your decisions just like you were at the mercy of other parties in Reddit.

My point is, you are no less deserving of decreeing what is truth or false than anybody else. You get away with doing it here because you are the sole authority on this forum.

So, why is speculation a sin when the objective truth is not available? This whole forum is built on both evidence (of varying strength) and speculation/discussion about the microbiome. You often declare yourself the most informed authority on the microbiome and FMT, yet you and nobody else can truly assess (as in complete undeniable truth, inaccessible to humans due to their sensory and cognitive limitations that permeate any tool created by us to assess reality) that as there is no evidence for an omniscient entity to gauge that.

The best individual at something can be the best for a time until someone else comes around and takes their place. Doesn’t always happen, but many geniuses and authorities get some or most of their views debunked with time. Because, as you already know, evidence changes.

If speculation is never allowed, it can never lead to the truth. In this situation, you can correct it but you choose not to for your own personal reasons. That is valid. So is valid my conversation with SFBay. Even if his speculation borderlines into misinformation.

But who can say what is misinformation in this context, if only you know the truth? The reason you probably don’t target me specifically is that I am either more closer to the truth in my speculation, or I am not but I just don’t offend you as much. Could that be because my statements are not as infuriating to you? I don’t know. Maybe they do bother you but my behavior in this forum is perceived as less insidious.

 

[Michael Harrop]

I have other comments though that will remain here.

Click to shrink...

Moved because it's off-topic.

Speculation can become misinformation, but it doesn’t have to be. Nor is it always done with ill intentions.

Click to shrink...

This is a perfect example of the "continual stream of nonsense" that comes from SFBay. Presumably, you did it by accident; thus, I will address it this once, but just like with SFBay, if you were to continue doing things like this, you forfeit the privilege of being owed a response.

Your entire lengthy comment relies on one false assumption -- that the issue was "speculation", which is false. Speculation by itself is not a problem. I stated the problem clearly in the referenced thread, multiple times.

Users aren’t allowed to delete posts past a certain time but you, as judge/jury/executioner, can whenever you want.

Click to shrink...

There is a meta section open for complaints. No one's had a problem yet.

 

[Michael Harrop]

It is not appropriate, it is emotional. If you are so dejected of trying to correct misinformation because it is so vast, then why change the thread’s title? It is not a tool for truth, it was a tool to express your frustration. A polite way to insult, not to correct.

Click to shrink...

I disagree with every part. It's not emotional; it's not an expression of frustration, and it's not an insult. I would know, given that I'm the one who did it. It's an accurate description of the content of the thread. This isn't the first time that people have projected erroneous interpretations onto things I've said.

Why change the title? To notify readers that they need not waste their time; that the thread is full of "Silly, useless, erroneous, fictitious, and nonsensical" content. The alternatives would be:

• Take the time to debunk every erroneous statement
• Remove the offending comments completely
• Make a banner warning with the same wording

I already stated why I wouldn't do the first one. I opted not to do the second one because I highly err on the side of transparency and free speech. The 3rd one would require a 3rd-party add-on.

I notice that you've simply disagreed with the title change without offering an alternative.

 

[IsthmusSIBO]

It is effectively impossible to debate about what exactly is constituted as speculation vs misinformation on that thread as only you have the complete truth about the topics discussed there, so I am not going to address it anymore.

There is a meta section open for complaints. No one's had a problem yet

Click to shrink...

I assume you don’t wonder this is the case because users (as your experiences support) rather not complain because they are either scared of conflict or see it is a waste of time as this forum is small and its admin/mod/most known user is in sole control, with no council of moderators?

All users thoughts will always be second to you as long as this is the status quo.

I disagree with every part. It's not emotional; it's not an expression of frustration, and it's not an insult. I would know, given that I'm the one who did it.

Click to shrink...

Lack of awareness of how a message comes across as offensive doesn’t stop someone from doing it.

Clearly, I am not alone in seeing this.

I notice that you've simply disagreed with the title change without offering an alternative.

Click to shrink...

I said in my original comment that the alternative was to leave it as is.

“Discussion about the future of HumanMicrobes.org and FMT“ was appropriate and still is.

Click to shrink...

I offered an alternative. You just disagree with it.

 

[Michael Harrop]

users (as your experiences support) rather not complain because they are either scared of conflict or see it is a waste of time

Click to shrink...

Again, you propose no alternative. You're well aware that I already strongly err on the side of free speech, and am one of the most lenient moderators that exists anywhere. Finding intelligent people who are willing to unbiasedly moderate for free is something that wasn't even possible to find on other social media sites with vastly larger user bases. So establishing a "council of moderators" here is a fantasy.

In fact, I recently attempted to establish such a council in another much larger community with numerous ideal candidates, and they all declined.

It is effectively impossible to debate about what exactly is constituted as speculation vs misinformation

Click to shrink...

This is not true whatsoever. I just said in my last comment that there is nothing inherently wrong with speculation. Your inability to differentiate between the two demonstrates a cognitive deficit on your end.

SFBay was warned for the exact same thing. Whether it's an accident due to a cognitive deficit, or deliberate due to bad intentions, the outcome is the same -- it's troll-like behavior that warrants moderator action, and when done repeatedly, it forfeits your privilege of receiving detailed responses and rebuttals.

Clearly, I am not alone in seeing this.

Click to shrink...

The comment you linked to was based on erroneous assumptions that I cleared up.

Lack of awareness of how a message comes across as offensive doesn’t stop someone from doing it.

Click to shrink...

I make objective statements, and people erroneously project emotions and intentions onto them that don't exist. That's an error on their part. I shouldn't have to, and will not, spend increased time and effort to treat readers like easily upset babies.

I said in my original comment that the alternative was to leave it as is.

Click to shrink...

Very well then. Yes, I think "doing nothing" is not a valid option. This forum is absolutely not a free-for-all, and exists in large part due to how poorly that works elsewhere.