Adding a Moderation channel to the forum

[aschrijver]

@bumblefudge

Thank you very much for this, I very much would support a Moderation channel here, although maybe for clarity (since this is both a technical and a community/admin forum) Moderation and Moderation-tooling might be two different channels with very different audiences.

Hi there @bumblefudge, SocialHub is a so-called Do-Ocracy and if you are willing to be active on this subject, then it can be facilitated. I will ping @how as forum admin who could set you up. Note that it will require putting in the effort. SocialHub is best-known and interacted with by a developer audience, atm.

[bumblefudge]

hehe put me down for moderation-tooling, but im not.experienced enough with day-to-day moderation to do-acratically be responsible for a moderator chat. besides, jaz has a lemmy set up and iftas has a matrix for the latter anyways!

Alex Stamos (@alex@cybervillains.com)

[aschrijver]

There’s no rush. You could evaluate here what you want to do and need, and @how can follow up if that requires forum admin tasks

[how]

So you want to setup an special category for Fediverse mods? I think that is a good idea.

My first thinking is that I would add #fediversity:moderation::category as a private space for Fediverse mods to discuss out of public sight, and #activitypub:moderation-tooling::category to discuss specification and software. But then, this poses a couple of issues: “Moderation tooling” is not necessarily software; and separating technical concerns from social ones might be counter-productive.

What do you think?

[bumblefudge]

@how

My first thinking is that I would add #fediversity:moderation::category as a private space for Fediverse mods to discuss out of public sight, and #activitypub:moderation-tooling::category to discuss specification and software. But then, this poses a couple of issues: “Moderation tooling” is not necessarily software; and separating technical concerns from social ones might be counter-productive.

I think a PRIVATE channel where mods can talk brass talk is awesome. I am not the expert here, though, so I will tag @jmking into the conversation to see if such a channel would be redundant, because I fear they may already have set up something similar elsewhere!

As for moderation-tooling, I think that one should be public, and I do think having it here among the software-design topics is fine, because there are plenty of non-technical users here (and hopefully a subset of moderators willing to give user input when “moderation dashboards” get discussed)

[jmking]

Thanks for tagging me!

IFTAS has a Matrix space and is building out a separate Web-based community of practice specifically for practicing moderators and folks involved and engaged with trust and safety in federated activities.

We have a general moderator community chat, as well as workgroups including a moderation-tooling group - we are exploring an API for AP services to use for things like Spam, CSAM, takedown requests etc., and our longer-term mission is to provide open moderation tools that are platform/implementation agnostic. We are focussed on AP, but will likely engage with AT at some point as well.

Element

Additional moderator communities that you would want to announce any new resources added here include https://matrix.to/#/#mastodon_moderation:matrix.org and https://chat.iftas.org/#/room/#local-moderators-hub:matrix.org - and of course moderation activity is discussed in most of the various Fediverse administrator-facing communities.

That said, IFTAS is not a standards body, our output will likely result in an FEP here and there, but will more likely involve the various platform and app developer teams. It may seem somewhat redundant to create those groups here, but if there’s a goal to use AP for the tooling for example, it would make sense to house that here in my opinion, and there is a specific set of people here with a specific set of goals that may find it simpler to convene here than elsewhere.

[bumblefudge]

@jmking

That said, IFTAS is not a standards body, our output will likely result in an FEP here and there, but will more likely involve the various platform and app developer teams. It may seem somewhat redundant to create those groups here, but if there’s a goal to use AP for the tooling for example, it would make sense to house that here in my opinion, and there is a specific set of people here with a specific set of goals that may find it simpler to convene here than elsewhere.

That’s a fair point-- if AP is already in scope and people are already batting around use-cases and requirements there, I would tend to agree a separate group here would be needless redundancy. Sorry to be late to that party! I don’t use matrix much but I’ll pop in and listen for a week or two before taking up anyone’s time with n00b questions

[how]

@jmking

It may seem somewhat redundant to create those groups here

I think you meant there. It would indeed be appreciated that we keep the discussions focused here instead of spreading them thin across the Internet.

[how]

@bumblefudge, @natacha I created a group and two categories associated with that group. I made a tentative description for the categories, but I think you mean something else, so I kept the categories private for the group. Only you two (and admins) can see it, so we can take the time to describe the topic properly.

I’d like to make it so that those categories facilitate effective collaborative work to build knowledge, rather than promote idle chat.

[jmking]

“here and there” as in “from time to time”, any FEP activity will absolutely be here/FEP codeberg

EDIT: either I misread the quote, or the quote has been edited and now references a different part of my reply, so my answer above no longer seems relevant.

WRT to the IFTAS discussions, those will happen at IFTAS as that’s where we are convening, but anything coming out of our workgroups that would make sense as a FEP or is specifically ActivityPub focussed will be brought to this group as a natural course of activity.