While we encourage well-informed, well-argued, and sometimes energetic discussions, rancor is another matter. Yesterday, a long thread on Lambert’s post on the RFK, Jr. speech where RFK, Jr. excoriated the contemporary Democratic party and endorsed Trump too often descended into advocacy and bile.
Several times in the past I have had to shut off comments entirely for a period of time to tell readers we mean business about maintaining civility in the comments section. We have already lost our longest-standing moderator thanks to toxic comments on the Gaza conflict. We aren’t even in the expected-to-become-even more-intense post Labor Day campaign, yet temperatures are already running way too hot.
I will not allow the partisanship successfully stoked in the political sphere destroy this comments section. Tribalism and partisanship are the antithesis of critical thinking. Indeed, they are designed to shut down critical thinking.
So if these food fights do not stop immediately, you are leaving us with three choices:
1. Halting coverage of the US election
2. Shutting down comments for an extended period or alternatively, not allowing them on US politics posts
3. Forcing us to moderate for new behavior violations, including:
– Endorsing or advocating for a particular candidate. That includes saying who you plan to vote for and criticizing readers for being too soft on the other guy (which is not the same as pointing out errors or sloppy reasoning)
– Flogging talking points, like “Harris is a Marxist” or “Trump is weird”
Implementing #3 will entail either moderating all comments or ripping out comments (and threads if they grow into threads) by readers normally in good standing.
So I ask you to take this message to heart and think carefully before you publish a supercharged comment.
72 comments
Comments are closed.
we all deserve better than boorish behavior. kudos for the warning. i hope it serves its intended purpose.
This attitude is why I come here.
“Tribalism and partisanship are the antithesis of critical thinking. Indeed, they are designed to shut down critical thinking.”
Thank you.
100%. Same for me. It would be sad to see another site descend into the gutter so kudos to the NC team for putting their feet down.
Point well taken. However, the remedy could well be worse than the disease, because some readers’ responses to a post (even the most prescient or cogent) are as good as the post itself. It would be destructive if such responses were discouraged simply because one wants to weed out the chaff and trolling.
I don’t believe it’s possible to eliminate tribal behaviour. The most one can do is mitigate the destructive intellectual impact it has on debate.
While not impossible, I personally find it unlikely that comments which “are as good as the post itself” would run afoul of the issues Yves described as being problematic.
To me, the overall health of the NC site and its owners/moderators/contributors are of prime importance. If things need to be changed in order to maintain that health, then so be it.
> Fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics and power
Can’t shut down politics. Of the options, shutting off comments temporarily is the only one that works with Our Goal is to Promote Critical Thinking. Brandolini’s Law will always be a tautological problem with moderation, but for a website with this goal, egregious bs must be challenged. Multiply the labor needed by the number of valid subjective perspectives (Not bs) to work through. Taleb’s list of professions which show no evidence of skill at prediction includes finance, economics, and politics. Yet we are driven to project about them.
> We have already lost our longest-standing moderator thanks to toxic comments on the Gaza conflict.
This is unacceptable. At this moment the ‘Kennedy’ post has 281 comments, and that’s after some were deleted. Yves’ assessment of moderators is exceptional, and they can’t keep getting run off. When comments go critical in a non-thinking manner is when they get vile and overabundant. So dim the lights and draw the curtains on the salon door until things quiet down. The other options just create more work for the moderators.
Thanks. I saw the RFK speech in real time and read 15-20 summaries from various news outlets. NC had by far the best reporting of an event that was seemingly difficult to cover. RFK didn’t appear to distribute or use notes / teleprompters while diagnosing and proposing solutions to many problems not getting traction in other campaigns or media coverage. I was amazed at how many other articles failed to mention RFKs expressed views on reforming health-impacting industries and how they might be gaining influence in a potential Trump administration.
I have a cut/paste of the RFK speech transcript and read part of it. It is around 6000 words so he must have spoken for for about an hour. I got bogged down even trying to read it, but yeah he made some points.
Could someone provide a brief synopsis of the poo flinging on that thread? I
I would assume the worst of it, like the worst of my comments, have been deleted.
I doubt I’m the only regular commenter who has had intemperate comments deleted. It’s part of what makes this site good.
Perhaps something like the “Circuit Breaker” function used in the stock market system. When ‘rancour’ passes a certain level, (well defined by the famous “I recognize it when I see it” quote,) just stop the comment thread for a stated period of time. (I know, I know, it is an assignment. Sorry, but it’s the best I can think of on short notice.)
What does this level of animosity in a usually well-balanced segment of the population predict for the general population as the election approaches the “finish line?”
Second, the Cynic in me suggests that such an outpouring of hate and spite could well be a preferred outcome of certain “players” in the political Establishment. Riots and civil disturbances would be the perfect pretense for the imposition of Draconian remedies by “the usual suspects.”
One glaring failure of logical thinking I noticed in the “Kennedy Drops Out” comments thread was the “You are either with us or against us” canard. This is probably the most polarizing election I have seen yet.
The “Circuit Breaker” has an ability to trigger on number of comments without attending to content. I have found that the “For You” section on the Twitter feed commits trauma upon me. “Following” I have consented to, but ForYou keeps trying to show me videos of people violently dying, and occasionally one slips through. It is mentally destabilizing. In this vein, the moderators will have to deal with the content, but they need to be able to keep a pace without being flooded.
Most of what the mods deal with is verbal, but words can carry plenty of weight. The occasional personal attack must really grind. That’s assuming no malevolent intent toward the site, which we damn well know happens. (Thanks WaPo and News Guard for making that explicit.) Wicked problem.
To your point, there are modes of derision that are pretty close to a personal attack. We and the mods often spend way too much time on them, particularly if they come from an established reader. Are they just having a bad day or on the way to becoming hopelessly sour (we have seen that happen all too often)? It’s even harder to deal with that problem when they don’t provide a bona fide e-mail address so that we can tell them privately that they can’t persist in that sort of thing.
A second issue on a big and/or heated threat, the impact of harsh comments becomes cumulative. You can see both Lambert and me getting testy in the RFK, Jr. thread. The mods also became more hardlined in their responses. They trashed some comments as unacceptable that I was going to let marinade and decide later whether to release and contest or move to trash (one way we take the temperature out of unduly strident comments is to keep them on hold in moderation for a while; if you think of this in circuit breaker terms, it’s a limited implementation of that approach). One reason all of us on the mod team wind up reacting this way is that, whether intended or not, multiple sharp-edged comments come off as piling on.
I found myself losing interest in the discussion thread, a good indicator things were going sideways there. Also an indicator that the rules work and are important to the continued success of the site. Thank you (and mods) for keeping the site amazing.
Thank you for this post. I expect high quality content and comments from this site.
While I have interest in some comments, I have left many sites because of the childish name-calling and deeply inconsiderate behavior of the commenters.
Every 4 years I have to remove myself from all public discourse because of the ugliness of US presidential elections and its dirty, shallow politics that leeches into our society dividing it further and further.
This behavior, like the extremes during 2020/21 is EXACTLY what the politicians want and the people comply. Truly exasperating.
My edits weren’t quick enough.
I’ll depart with this: free speech is a powerful privilege which is why our founding fathers embedded it in our Constitution as a ‘right’.
Freedom of speech, like many privileges, requires responsibility by those who understand its value. When one possesses something of value, one cherishes it, one does not abuse it.
Do what you must to control the lack of respect in the discourse, sadly, it might be censorship.
Maybe someday soon you’ll be able to give AI [eg ChatGPT 4o] a sample set of rejected or deleted comments, and AI might be able to be both sensitive and selective when flagging and/or delaying posting of comments which have a high probability of being unacceptable.
This could reduce the load on the mods quite a bit.
Outside the USA the election show in USA is uninteresting since only Politico-Media types are invested in it. Everyone else is concerned with daily events and outrageous provocations emanating from USA most of which Americans do not discuss or condemn or even know about.
There are reports of serving US Rangers KIA in Kursk together with British, French and Polish operatives. Yet no US politician seems to face the electorate and explain why US is capturing Russian civilians and occupying Russian territory or building a B52 base in Romania
Whatever emotions the distraction of US TV politics holds for Americans is irrelevant to the prospect of total destruction when RS28 or Bulava or Yars are used to repay the invasion of Russia by U.S.-sponsored NATO troops.
“Outside the USA the election show in USA is uninteresting”
Not in the UK, where the BBC, Guardian etc are treating it as if the UK is the 52nd state. (As it may as well be, for all the independence displayed by successive governments, apart from Harold Wilson’s). This is in sharp contrast to elections in any other country, which are only covered when a left-wing party threatens to upset the apple-cart. “Slavery is freedom”!
But apart from that, I agree completely.
Only Politico-Media types are invested
BBC and Guardian qualify as same personnel
“apart from Harold Wilson’s”
Sadly not. Wilson was at least as subservient to the US as any other post-war UK prime minister. He and his senior ministers kept the US fully informed about their plans, sometimes even before telling the cabinet, and Washington virtually dictated a range of British economic and foreign policies, in secret (taking advantage of the UK’s parlous financial situation).
Wilson is credited with refusing LBJ’s request to send British troops to Vietnam, due to opposition within the Labour party (there were very few troops available anyway). But, short of sending troops, Wilson secretly agreed to help the US war effort in other ways.
Source: Clive Ponting’s Breach of Promise – Labour in Power 1964-1970 (Penguin 1990). Highly recommended.
An anecdotal report from central Mexico: Almost nobody here, neither Mexican nor expat, could seem to care less about the US election. Among Canadian expats there is close to a consensus that neither Harris nor Trump could win an election for a seat on the Parks Board of a small city anywhere else in the world. The odd USA expat appears to be miffed and/or mystified that neither Mexicans nor non USian expats tend to see Trump as a greater threat than the Dems. Trump is generally seen as the frontrunner, but it is shrugged off.
I skipped the posting, and the comments; it is disappointing to learn that the comments descended into vitriol, but more than that, it is surprising that something as anodyne as the presidential election in the “Greatest Nation” could provoke such ardour.
I’m sorry this is happening. I generally avoid anything related to US electoral politics as it’s just a distraction – you would need to believe that the US is a democracy to give it any weight – even though I have been fooled in the past, notably the Sanders campaigns.
I’m surprised that Gaza comments have driven out the longest serving moderator. From what I’ve seen, they’ve been mostly on point.
You did not see the comments we trashed. You are seeing the post-moderation results, not the raw comments flow. Many were vile in their rabid hostility towards Palestinians or Hamas or Zionists or Jews.
ok, got you. the iceberg below the water.
I thought that the whole purpose of USA elections is to make plebs fight each other.
there are probably people who would love to see a sane comment section shut down. those who prefer people are stuck reverted to easy to manipulate tribal state. the struggle against the manipulators is real :(
The idea that electoral politics in the US has had any relationship with policy is a laughable conceit.
I treasure this site for its informative discussions on policy, which sock puppet is selected by our owners is just a sign of where some groups within the oligarchy would like things to go.
In a world where profit-driven denial finally cannot be denied, Absolutist thinking rules, aka The Imperative Voice. Look at the silly service pieces in the MSM: You MUST try this; You MUST NOT do that, etc. Polarization becomes the rule even in the details of domestic life. No wonder the commentariat is so testy.
hoisted from this morning’s links:
Why Is The World So Binary?
Three cheers for NC and the comment mods. Hugs to the one we lost.
Of the proposed remedies the preferable one is that commenters heed the warning but they are all acceptable to me.
Perhaps fortunately, I was busy this weekend so I missed that thread.
But I’ve certainly noticed an increasing sourness of the mood btl, no doubt a reflection of world events, and I’m sure the mods see much worse things. Gaza of course is attracting hordes of bad faith commentators to every corner of the ‘net.
I’ve taken a few mini breaks from commenting over the past few months precisely because I’ve found my own patience fraying, and I had to stop myself from making a situation worse by writing something I’d regret.
I think a few ‘time outs’ is healthy for everyone, so pulling threads or imposing comment breaks is certainly a good idea if it preserves the integrity of the site.
Thank you, PK. We don’t want to lose your input!
Agree on circuit-breakers, time-outs, or whatever you want to call them. And I’d hope that NC feels free to publish articles closed to comments for any reason (without needing to say what it is) including just wanting to take a break from moderating.
Thanks .Tom, I agree with your point on comment-less articles, although I wonder if this might just encourage some people to put their comments elsewhere.
I’m intrigued by the ban on advocating for/saying you’re going to vote for a particular candidate.
I don’t get a vote in the US but I’d have thought it would be ok to say that if I did I’d vote for Jill Stein and say why.
Equally as a UKian I’d like to be able to say that I’d vote for a left of Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
It seems to me that saying who you would vote for is likely less abusive than saying who you wouldn’t.
On the other hand, reading NC has become a big part of my day and a big part of that is some of the, shall we say, “abrasive” comments. Some restraint is surely to be encouraged but is there not a danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water here?
Based on my own experience (not here), the “abrasive” comments show up in response to stating a political opinion. Mentioning Stein positively in even the weakest terms will draw white hot ad hominem responses from many people. With that in mind, a comment pause could be viewed as a safety measure to the initial commenter’s mental health instead of a ban on the comment.
This is a difficult situation for the staff, and I hope that people can cool it.
Could this post be ‘pinned’ to the top? I am sorry you have to deal with humans, but here we are…thanks to everyone that makes this place wonderful and informative.
I am the other John not the one whose comment was posted at 7:42. Do as you must but I would hope the message was clear. Neither the wars nor the election need more heat.
Perhaps it would be good for you to differentiate yourself from the other ‘John’ by changing your user name slightly? I realise there is a question of who had precedence, but who wants to have a doppelgänger who espouses possibly opposing views? You could always make it “John the First’ or something similar! I am actually a ‘John’ too but it’s just too common to be useable.
I will simply say that my heart is with you.
Everyone is understandably on edge. But as my Dad used to say …Keep it cool.
The Serenity Prayer states clearly…..“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.”
And my favorite…..Should it be said? Does it need to be said? Does it need to be said by ME?!!!
Naked Cap is clearly a healthy addiction for most of us…Hope it stays that way. Thanks. Peace.
Maybe the Naked Capitalism Serenity Prayer can go something like this:
“Should it be said? Does it need to be said? Does it need to be said by ME?!!!”
This is wisdom.
NC is the only comment section I keep up with. Yves and Lambert and the mods have done a great job for the last 10+ years I’ve been coming here and I truly appreciate it. I sincerely hope you do whatever you need to to keep sane, and I hope everyone calms down some.
Many of you know I am a perennial D candidate for Congress in KY-02, this is a deep R district. Over the years I have been forced to try many approaches when it comes to discourse – it has taken a while but I am finally comfortable with virtually everyone I meet, even if we disagree. Some of this is personally required to survive the gruesome process of running for office, to truly attempt to take on the many dysfunctions of our political system. These include: the business of running; vendors for materials, services and *expertise*, while being in conflict with party leadership, and raising money.
I have to credit some of my approach to my involvement with Braver Angels. I have learned to start with a relationship first – I introduced myself to a party leader recently and said, “I’m Hank, I’m the party’s pain in the A.” He said, “Oh, I know who you are…” I asked for a coffee or a meal so we could have a relationship before we argued, and he agreed. We had a 2 hour meeting, and I like him. We have a relationship, I can text and get an answer, set up a call or a meeting.
I purposely look for agreement, I purposely aim to understand the other person’s perspective, I aim to make a friend. And, I aim to accurately understand and be able to represent the other person’s viewpoint, esp when we disagree.
Braver Angels is not an action organization, but I have definitely learned skills that I was able to put into personal action. https://braverangels.org
Worth a look…
Best…H
We’ve allowed you to discuss your candidacy even though we are generally opposed to self-promotion. It was disrespectful to this post and the site to do so on a post where we explicitly said that advocating for particular candidates was problematic behavior. I am not at all happy with this action. The mods wanted to trash your comment and moderate you.
Couldn’t agree more with your response, Yves.
Thanks to you and Lambert for giving us NC as an invaluable reality check.
Yves, I was/am not advocating for my campaign, only identifying where I’m coming from as I propose possible ways to avoid rancor, build community and find solutions during political discussion. I am advocating ideas, such as a willingness to repair division at the grassroots, particularly between Rs & Ds. There is no other way that I see to overcome “an extractive economy run by a tiny minority of the wealthiest people” as Wendell Berry puts it.
IMOYMMV – Division allows Corruption which creates Inequality which creates more Division, which allows more Corruption… a truly vicious circle.
Of these 3, Division is the soft spot, the only one that any of us can affect with our daily actions and behaviors. Both of these parties are seriously messed up, the only one any of us MIGHT be able to change is our own, running for office can give you a tiny platform to address the entrenched power structure of your party. The only mind I aim to change is my own, it’s up to you to decide where you stand. And, I want to hear about it – I usually learn something.
I also underlined the work of Braver Angels. At the recent convention in Kenosha, we attended the largest bipartisan viewing of the debate in America, probably the world. We had 500 or so people in a room watching together, I was sitting next to my new R friend, we were equally divided between Red and Blue but united in the idea of finding ways to get along.
I can see where simply mentioning running for office would trigger moderation, apologies for that.
Best…H
Saying that you are running and describing your positions is advocating for your campaign. It’s publicity.
The point was I have allowed it but you were disrespectful in doing so on a post where we were EXPLICITLY telling readers that they needed not to engage in advocacy of particular candidates. This would have been tolerable on Links but not here, where it was no only off topic but contrary to the clear message of the post. I don’t see why this is difficult to understand.
Funny how choices that are so similar in outcomes that you could say they are non-choices can stir up such a frenzy: Trump vs Clinton, Trump vs. Biden, Trump vs. Harris, Coca-Cola vs Pepsi, McDonalds vs. Burger King, what other dichotomies do we have that are exactly the same just different packaging?
Putin has already said, based on his multi-decade long experience dealing with the agreementnoncapable Americans, that it doesn’t matter who is the president of the USA. For the rest of the world, the chaos, violence and death just continues.
Your post sums it up nicely: that’s the way the contrived spectacle is designed. The plebs are directed to fight among themselves over emotionally-charged, superficial cultural issues. The plebs attach themselves emotionally to a personality and line of rhetoric (BS).
The fact that Yves had to make this post is testament to the emotional, temporary insanity that is whipped up every election. I see very informed, intelligent people make comments about politics and political figures that I find quite irrational. I guess this is not surprising given the huge amount of resources and money used to create the illusion and spectacle.
It sounds pessimistic and cynical, but the US has no functioning democracy, we clearly have an oligarchy. US Elections Inc. are merely the world’s most lucrative PR stunts. The US population must be one of the most conditioned, manipulated and misinformed in history. A heavily armed, misinformed, emotional and ignorant population is a recipe for further violence. As conditions slowly but steadily deteriorate in the US, more violence is to be expected.
I cannot speak to anyone else, but I think the vile nature of the choice is disheartening enough to erode emotional stability.
That is 100% true. We should be discussing action plans how to get a better selection to choose from rather than get all fired up for one unwiped, stinking cheek of the same arse, as George Galloway puts it, and attack partisans of the other unwiped snd ewually stinking cheek of the very same arse.
If tensions are rising among those who ordinarily tend to civility, that might be worth a report by bloggers. Comparisons might help index, as it were, where the potential electorate stand as days wind down to a precious few.
“or on the way to becoming hopelessly sour (we have seen that happen all too often)?” Yves, i fight this every day and fear i am losing, everyday
Perhaps since the turn of the century (IMO), powerful forces in the United States have made major efforts to turn various tribes against each other and generate increasing levels of hatred across the society and make it socially acceptable to do so. It started with right wing talk radio in the 1990s, and then was rapidly adopted by media across the political spectrum.
We are all familiar with the results. Families no longer talking to each other, the impossibility of rational discussion on many topics, acceptability of censorship and “cancellation” on most media, and the loss of rights and privileges that used to be considered sacrosanct in the United States, at least in principle. Sensitive people are increasingly forced to retreat into isolation, and those who promote hatred are finding a ready audience almost anywhere. It’s hard to avoid the feeling that the country is being torn apart or sinking into some kind of primordial morass.
NC has not only served as a counterweight to all this, but importantly has shown that it’s possible to have human interactions that are respectful and ultimately worthwhile even if you disagree with them in detail. Eve and Lambert deserve our respect and appreciation for keeping the free speech era alive and healthy, and hopefully rolling things back to an earlier era when humans could work together and collectively create worthwhile things despite, or perhaps because, of our differences. It would obviously be easier and less work for them to turn off the comments, but to their great credit they are willing to put in the extra work and set a good example for all of us.
Thank you very much you guys.
As a thought, a semi-automated throttle might be a good idea.
Basically if posts exceed a certain rate, then posts are held and not posted.
You would actually want to vary this with the relative newness of the post.
If you are seeing 50 (or even 200) posts/hour on a post from the past 6 hours, that’s probably nothing out of the ordinary, but if you see 50 posts/hour for a post from a day and a half ago, that’s probably a red flag, and you want to pop up a message to the user saying something like, “Extremely high activity posts, moderators are reviewing.”
Understand that my numbers are purely for example here.
Thanks for the reminder. I’m not proud of the tone I took in there, and it was the wrong thread to riff something so raw out. After I realized all I’d done was upset a bunch of people I respected, well, I’m sorry for the behavior.
I appreciate your apology. Thanks. Very few are mature enough to make one.
Yves, your level headed approach is why I come back to this site over and over again. The check is in the mail, to put my money where my mouth is.
Thanks, do whatever you need to do. I’m confident it will be right.
I wonder if the onslaught of comments inciting arguments has come from those who wish to take down Naked Capitalism or make its readers go elsewhere. It is close to the election and could be part of a dirty tricks agenda. My sympathies to the mods who have had to deal with this.
Your “stern note” is really hard on free speech fundamentalists. I realize NC is not an entity to which Constitutional provisions apply. That said, free speech is at the heart of our cultural and civic ethos. Times are when being partisan or personal is hard upon me; I am not always able to resist. I do not believe I have offended your standard.
I think that our hosts are concerned about the times that an entire conversation turns vicious, cruel, even deliberately sadistic, not when someone makes an intemperate remark; that line from intemperate to vicious is crossed mightily quickly nowadays, not always because that is the normal impulse of the commenter, but because of the intense pressure we are all under. That pressure makes it much harder to be either humane or an adult.
It’s taken me a while to assemble this comment. I hope I haven’t over-thought it. (Or under-thought it, for that matter.)
I have definitely been one to declare (or at least vigorously imply) my policy and political preferences in my comments. To perhaps a lesser extent, I have also commented in favor of equal time and respect for views outside the duopoly/”binary” — and the value that can exist in supporting them despite mainstream pressures (narrative and otherwise) to suppress those views.
I have occasionally been a moderator on in-party listservs, where people gather specifically because they share significant amounts of issue- and policy-related views. So I can tell you from experience that I know a little of what NC’s moderators — and our hosts, in their higher-level and more visible role as both moderators and commenters themselves — have been going through. I appreciate and understand their efforts both to fill these roles and to find better ways of keeping the comment-space functional for the commentariat and the readership.
I have tried to be respectful and measured in my language when commenting here, and I plan to take additional care in that area. And I hope and expect that standards in these sensitive areas will be applied with care and fairness by moderators and hosts alike.
I debated reading this and the comments. I come to NC to make me think, most of the time anyway. I have stopped reading certain themes because of where the comments have descended — which is unfortunate. I have no issue disagreeing with people, I do have an issue with the vitriol.
So, bottom line is thanks Yves, et. al.
PS I have on occasion posted a somewhat snarky or sarcastic post. It’s kind of in my DNA. Or, sometimes due to time pressures I didn’t articulate what I was trying to say very well or elegantly. I will try and do better.
Snark is OK. Nasty is not. It is admittedly often hard to see where the line is.
I feel fortunate to have missed the rancor attending comments to Lambert’s post on RFK. Compared with other concerns, the election seems a largely meaningless and relatively unimportant ritual. Regardless of the elections outcome, the Empire will continue to destroy itself and collapse. The Climate is progressing toward a new climate far less amicable to Humankind. The world economies are rapidly using up the resources they vitally depend on. The rich grow obscenely richer and the rest of us are strapped in for a ride over the cliff.
Older generations are always right. Combine that with the emotional dysregulation that occurs with aging. The feeling is terror, for everyone.
I say this because a family member could be contributing to the vitriol on NC. It’s not political. It’s just how some people handle conflict. Hurt people hurt others. Whether they are allowed to speak or no one is allowed to speak, they are still hurting others.
I’m sorry it’s like this.
Moderating is unpleasant, and I’m sorry to learn yours quit, Yves. I don’t comment very often, especially about high emotion topics; X is my preferred venue for drive by snark and occasional vitriol. I come to NC for well reasoned commentary, links, and bird song. If ever I’ve overstepped in the comments I do apologize. FWIW I would be fine if political posts were closed to comments until the smoke clears.
This is a difficult predicament.
Just a suggestion, though
I am knee-jerk inclined against censorship. As how do we know what should be censorable?
What about, including an ability, for members, to block, other members? Allowing, the community to decide who is going to be censored. Lifting the burden from the moderator, while, maintaining the democratic front end. Just a suggestion
Trust me, you would be all for moderation if you saw the comments we don’t let through.
No, allowing that would allow malicious actors to game comments. That already happens in a bad way on sites that merely allow up and down voting of comments. Partisans come in in a very big way.
And comment moderators have to be administrators in WordPress, which means giving them keys to the kingdom. We can do that only with a very select few that we trust completely.
I know this is a bit late, but first, I just want to thank Yves, Lambert, & all the moderators. I’ve never been a community moderator or admin, and I don’t think I’d ever like to be, but I recognize it makes all the difference.
As for what to do, I actually had one other idea (I guess it could work in tandem with #3). If critical thinking is a core value of the site, how about one or two threads, RfC style, for the community to hash out a programme of how to think & communicate about the election?
Not a policy platform, not anything involved or complex, but something more… meta-cognitive? Plus Yves & team would still always have the gavel. That way maybe people will be free to express even detailed or specific opinions; they just need to think through the rhetorical reasons *why* they’re saying it. And anything clearly unhelpful still gets blocked, warned, etc.
I just thought of it because when I read the thread & comments, a comment by one regular that lost their cool stood out. It doesn’t justify the comment, but IIRC where they’re coming from in past comments, I kind of sympathize with their feelings about the election & why they might have overreacted