On Content Removal
docs.beehaw.org
On Content Removal # Harmful, bigoted, or generally distasteful content isn’t as frequent on our site as it is elsewhere, but these do still appear enough that we sometimes get questions about why certain comments are left up. This post is meant to help you understand a bit about how we moderate. As stated in our sidebar and in tons of other places on our site, Beehaw aspires to be(e) a safe, friendly, and diverse place.

Hey all,

Moderation philosophy posts started out as an exercise by myself to put down some of my thoughts on running communities that I’d learned over the years. As they continued I started to more heavily involve the other admins in the writing and brainstorming. This most recent post involved a lot of moderator voices as well, which is super exciting! This is a community, and we want the voices at all levels to represent the community and how it’s run.

This is probably the first of several posts on moderation philosophy, how we make decisions, and an exercise to bring additional transparency to how we operate.

  •  agoramachina   ( @agoramachina@beehaw.org ) 
    5•1 year ago

    Unfortunately, I’ve experienced such things as well. As someone who places high value on acceptance and accountability, and is a member of several marginalized communities myself, there have been instances where “safe spaces”, unfortunately, aren’t.

    It took me a while to realize what exactly was so upsetting about those spaces. Sure, toxic individuals could be identified, but the practice itself? It wasn’t until a particular instance where I was censured for describing my own experiences and identities in my own terms that it really hit me: the harsh language policing was a part of the trauma I experienced in the fundamentalist church (an experience I have diagnosed PTSD from, btw. You ever get an authority to rally an entire group into screaming at you because the word “lucky” implies that things could happen outside of god’s divine will? Yeah.)

    Don’t get me wrong, language can absolutely be used as a weapon, and such things ought not be allowed. And even if one is speaking from a place of acceptance, it is still important to consider one’s words and the effect they may have on others.

    I think others have brought up a very good point: the importance of acting in good faith. I’ve certainly shifted my language over the years when it has been brought to my attention that certain words and phrases cause harm (the term “wheelchair-bound”, for insurance). But at every point I was acting in good faith and open to dialogue and correction.

    I think this, above all else, is the standard that just be upheld.

    -agoramachina (it/its)