Community Code
Katja
Public
Seen by 26
For a brief recap on how we arrived at this document, its provenance is basically:
the substance of (the final version of) Cohost's Community Guidelines (in specific, the version with the "missing stair" section)
changes to those guidelines inherently necessary for dealing with a federated, consensus-based network which is operating in multiple countries with a range of different legal regimes
certain discussions aimed at fine-tuning various aspects of the above rules, particularly with respect to content warnings
changes necessary for dealing with feature set differences between our existing software stacks and Cohost's setup
I believe we are now at a point where we can vote on it.
Poll Created Wed 8 Jan 2025 4:07AM
Proposal: adopt the Community Code as drafted Closed Wed 15 Jan 2025 4:00AM
I propose that we adopt the Community Code as drafted.
For this proposal to pass, two-thirds of group membership must vote and there must be no major objections. While you are not obliged to provide a reasoning for anything besides a major objection, it may be helpful to others to explain why you support, have reservations with, or must stand aside from a proposal.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Endorse | 77.8% | 14 |
|
| No objection | 16.7% | 3 |
|
|
| Minor objection | 5.6% | 1 |
|
|
| Stand aside | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Abstain | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Major objection | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 17 |
.jpg){kind=avatar}
|
18 of 35 people have participated (51%)
Katja
Wed 8 Jan 2025 4:07AM
The last few times I've put updated versions up in Coordination for feedback, I've received minimal (if not no) suggestions or other feedback, so I believe this is now in a state where we should be voting on it. (Of course, I hope to hear feedback from people who have yet to contribute any thoughts now that it's up on Consensus, but…!)
vis
Wed 8 Jan 2025 4:07AM
In 13.3 "post" feels awkward to apply to header and pfp but the intent is clear. Endorse.
ruby
Wed 8 Jan 2025 4:07AM
Few notes:
- 1-6: probably needs more detail once a process for appeals is in place
- 2-7(3): when we say "unfair advantage", in what does that refer to? 2-7 is clear enough on it's own that this isn't an urgent concern though
- 3-9: does this belong in Rule 2?
None of these are substantive enough for me to consider any meaningful reservation against the code as written though - issues are more with formatting as opposed to the spirit of the document.
kouhai
Wed 8 Jan 2025 4:07AM
no major reservations, left some comments, may need an update with to incorporate revisions related to uk ofcom guidance for the online safety act 2023
(this vote does not count towards quorum as per previous self-designation)
easrng Sat 11 Jan 2025 9:08PM
Node Operators shall clearly state on a portion of their Node’s website which is accessible to non-Users the following information: [...] “global” or “federated” feeds.
This wording is unclear
easrng Sat 11 Jan 2025 9:17PM
direct indication that one User has blocked another User; or
Incomplete?
Katja · Thu 9 Jan 2025 6:55AM
@kouhai Thanks for your comments! Personally, my thoughts are (but I think some of these points will warrant further discussion):
Adding "Node Staff-managed content" to 2-6: makes sense in terms of clarifying the scope of that provision (as opposed to the more general ones about what content is and isn't permissible).
Yeah, definitely, simple-ish automations (like blocking certain words, spam filtering, those MRF features — which, yeah, I didn't know that that's a thing, so that's cool!) shouldn't be disallowed, IMO. The kind of "automated moderation decisions" I would be worried about would be anything that uses an algorithm sufficiently opaque that it can serve to launder admin discretion as opposed to just being an ongoing exercise of a clear, specific kind of discretion.
I think "meritorious" and "dismiss summarily" probably cover this well enough, IMO? Like, if someone comes back to appeal a permaban five years later because they've completely gotten over whatever beliefs or what not it was that led them to say some given permaban-worthy thing in the first place, I think that's different than someone appealing a ban for the third time in a single year, for example.
My assessment of this is that how we define "private" needs to be with reference to the degree to which someone is a public figure, and how much harm could result from the disclosure or dissemination of some given information — however, yeah, the wording, as it is, could support more aggressive interpretations than that. I'm curious as to what others' thoughts are, though!
Re.: partial nudity and "adult material": the floor's open re.: how we should handle that, I guess!
More specifically about the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 — in the medium/long term, we should probably have a more comprehensive response to legislation of that type, seeing as I wouldn't be surprised by it appearing in other jurisdictions in the future, than a general "also make sure you're following local laws" principle. (I should probably go and read some UK lawyers' analyses of the effect of said Act extraterritorially, really.)