Frequenting other forums

[tenyari]

I've always wondered why there is even a Politics forum on an erotica website.

It exists so that we don't have to listen to that junk all day long in every other forum.

Radical trolls with an agenda are nearly impossible to contain on any online platform in a world where social media is hyper training them to do it and telling everyone the only way to engage with other people is to scream accusations at them...

So the smart tactic is to make a honey trap and invite them in, where they can be contained away from the rest of us.

The day the politics forum here gets shut down is the day the rest of the site becomes unusable. Lets hope that day doesn't ever come.

 

[tenyari]

I still have the scars from the General Forum.

Am I missing anything sticking to just here?

Most of your threads would make more sense if they were posted to general. If general actually operated as a general forums. But general itself makes no sense as it's been taken over by posts of porn pics even though there actually is another forum for that purpose...

 

[EmilyMiller]

Most of your threads would make more sense if they were posted to general.

So at least 51% of my threads have nothing to do with writing? Hmm… interesting observation. Can you back it up at all?

Em

 

[Beholders_Eye]

I still have the scars from the General Forum. I tried BDSM Talk and GLBT Chatter a bit, but not my thing really (different flavors of both to mine, I guess). I used to post a bit in Fetish & Sexuality, but have kinda given up.

Am I missing anything sticking to just here?

Em

The way I work it is that I have, over the years, identified threads that I like, regardless of which Forum they are in. So, my normal Lit board browsing is just to look at 'Watched Threads'. Yes, from time to time I make a pass through 'New Posts' to see if there might be something that catches my eye, but I do not fixate (so to speak) on a particular Forum. And, sometimes, I will 'stop watching' a thread if it has ceased to interest me. I'm just here for the 'good stuff'!

 

[Duleigh]

I used to get a lot of those. But it’s abated. I think every one who wanted to send me one, must have done so already.

Now, as is probably evident from my writing, I’m pretty pro-cock. But there are some very ugly ones out there. In my experience, the ugliness seems proportional to the desire to inflict photos on innocent, unsuspecting, pure-in-heart women. And me as well.

Em

Maybe you should have replied in kind.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Maybe you should have replied in kind.

Why didn’t I think of that ?

Em

 

[CyranoJ]

Radical trolls with an agenda are nearly impossible to contain on any online platform

Not true. They're just impossible to contain on any online platform that refuses to actively moderate them and ban the worst offenders. Online forums that actually take these steps do, in fact, generally succeed in containing them.

 

[MrPixel]

Not true. They're just impossible to contain on any online platform that refuses to actively moderate them and ban the worst offenders. Online forums that actually take these steps do, in fact, generally succeed in containing them.

Good luck with that. Have you ever been a moderator? Just attempt to shutdown some loonbag that most of the forum members fully understand is a problem, and you're going to have a measurable percentage of the membership shouting "Censorship!" Nobody is happy, and you lose valued members. Completely predictable. Also predictable is garnering a reputation for strict enforcement, which drives away prospective talent once they detect the "tone" of the moderation.

Almost 40 years here being on both sides of that equation. Set-asides ("lounges" on some forums) seem to work best.

 

[CyranoJ]

Good luck with that. Have you ever been a moderator?

Yes.

Losing forum members who will cry "Censorship!" at the drop of a hat is a natural consequence of employing actual moderation. And yes, it will deter people who can't abide "strict" moderation (which is to say, moderation that actually enforces the standards most forums claim to have). The question is whether either of those is much of a loss.

Keeping extremists around also deters potential members from joining your forum, particularly when your moderation policy (or lack thereof) announces clearly that you don't give a shit about the kind of people the extremists target. Like the people deterred by so-called "strict" moderation, you won't hear from them either. But make no mistake, failing to act against extremists deters them just as surely.

Ultimately, it tends to be a wash in terms of traffic... in the short term. Where it makes a difference is the overall quality of the forum that results. If a forum acts firmly against extremists, it becomes a destination where actual discussion can happen. If it becomes a wilderness of extremist kooks and the people who tolerate them, it eventually languishes as the losses it suffers in the form of deterred potential traffic become clear. This is especially dramatic anywhere that a community actively invites the extremists in (The Escapist back in the day and Twitter right now are both notable examples), but simple unwillingness to confront them and undergo a bit of short-term conflict leads ultimately to much the same destination, just by a slower route. Hence, this thread.

 

[tenyari]

Not true. They're just impossible to contain on any online platform that refuses to actively moderate them and ban the worst offenders. Online forums that actually take these steps do, in fact, generally succeed in containing them.

What I've found is they usually end up moderating towards the moderator's own biases.

Trolls are have biases similar to the moderator get an unlimited leash. People who complain about them get tossed out alongside legit trolls.

That pattern repeats regardless of what biases the moderators actually have.

These places will seem well moderated only to those who share the same basic alignment as the moderator.

 

[CyranoJ]

What I've found is they usually end up moderating towards the moderator's own biases.

There is no such thing as being without bias. There are, however, far worse things than being biased against extremism. In spaces where the moderators have that bias, the extremists get thrown out. Where they do not, the extremists are free to disrupt the space more or less as they see fit.

There is no result that pleases everyone. There are results that throw out the most objectively noxious and harmful people, so I prefer those results and yes, I have more respect for spaces that fit a bias toward such results. It is, of course, possible to pretend that everyone is equally a "troll" and try to be "unbiased," but this stance is not honest and factually speaking, it always fuels the worst and most extremist trolls. If it were otherwise, the Literotica forums would have wound up in a far different place. That didn't happen.

 

[Duleigh]

Why didn’t I think of that ?

Em

It would be simple, someone sends you a dick pic, reply with one in your collection of unsolicited proof of arrogance, "Hey! Here's a nice fella you might like." You might hook up a couple of guys.

I really can't conceive of a situation where the idea of sending someone an unsolicited dick pic would be a good idea. I have been in a relationship where on-line taunting and teasing was mutually appreciated and a bit of show me yours and I'll show you mine play went on, but this was mutually agreed upon first.

 

[KeithD]

It would be simple, someone sends you a dick pic, reply with one in your collection of unsolicited proof of arrogance, "Hey! Here's a nice fella you might like." You might hook up a couple of guys.

I really can't conceive of a situation where the idea of sending someone an unsolicited dick pic would be a good idea. I have been in a relationship where on-line taunting and teasing was mutually appreciated and a bit of show me yours and I'll show you mine play went on, but this was mutually agreed upon first.

I've gotten a kick from time to time from receiving an unsolicited photo. The biggest kick was in receiving unsolicited art work said to have been inspired by my stories. I feel free to either respond or not to such unsolicited approaches, but I don't consider it bad to have gotten them unless they are extended into unsolicited stalking.

 

[Duleigh]

I've gotten a kick from time to time from receiving an unsolicited photo. The biggest kick was in receiving unsolicited art work said to have been inspired by my stories. I feel free to either respond or not to such unsolicited approaches, but I don't consider it bad to have gotten them unless they are extended into unsolicited stalking.

I personally don't think that taking a selfie centering on "Mr. Knish" and sending it unsolicited to a woman rises to an art form, but hey, art is art.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes.

Losing forum members who will cry "Censorship!" at the drop of a hat is a natural consequence of employing actual moderation. And yes, it will deter people who can't abide "strict" moderation (which is to say, moderation that actually enforces the standards most forums claim to have). The question is whether either of those is much of a loss.

Keeping extremists around also deters potential members from joining your forum, particularly when your moderation policy (or lack thereof) announces clearly that you don't give a shit about the kind of people the extremists target. Like the people deterred by so-called "strict" moderation, you won't hear from them either. But make no mistake, failing to act against extremists deters them just as surely.

We might just be using words differently, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the use of the word "extremists" in this context, in the sense that these are the people one wants to moderate.

There are many people whose views can be described as "extremist" in the sense that their views are substantively extremely outliers from the norm. I don't believe in censoring these kinds of extremists at all. A flat-Earther is an extremist. I don't believe flat-Earthers should be silenced or kicked off boards.

My beef has to do not with the content of the views but with the way people behave in social media forums. It's appropriate for a moderator to insist upon a certain minimal level of decorum--refraining from personal attacks and ad hominems, not indulging in vulgarity, insults, obscenity directed at others, minimizing the degree of personal conflict and antagonism, etc. I think moderators can serve a vital purpose in this respect.

 

[KeithD]

I personally don't think that taking a selfie centering on "Mr. Knish" and sending it unsolicited to a woman rises to an art form, but hey, art is art.

I didn't post anything about sending it to a woman, now did I? Read my post again and, if you decide to respond, try to respond to what I actually wrote. There was no reference to women in what I posted.

 

[Duleigh]

I didn't post anything about sending it to a woman, now did I? Read my post again and, if you decide to respond, try to respond to what I actually wrote. There was no reference to women in what I posted.

I was attempting to recenter the conversation onto what I originally said

 

[SexualisPhantasia]

It exists so that we don't have to listen to that junk all day long in every other forum.

Radical trolls with an agenda are nearly impossible to contain on any online platform in a world where social media is hyper training them to do it and telling everyone the only way to engage with other people is to scream accusations at them...

So the smart tactic is to make a honey trap and invite them in, where they can be contained away from the rest of us.

The day the politics forum here gets shut down is the day the rest of the site becomes unusable. Lets hope that day doesn't ever come.

Yes, you make a very good point.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

Until you mentioned it I never knew they really existed or what they were about.

Now I know they’re there I’m packing my bags and going to stay there for a few days.

Ciao!

 

[KeithD]

I was attempting to recenter the conversation onto what I originally said

Perhaps you should have done it without quoting something that had nothing to do with it. I doubt any of us are happy to be slammed for something we didn't post. My post was directly responding to an earlier one, and no one owns a thread they initiated or the direction it takes.

 

[TxRad]

Don't make me get out the chair and the whip.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

It exists so that we don't have to listen to that junk all day long in every other forum.

Radical trolls with an agenda are nearly impossible to contain on any online platform in a world where social media is hyper training them to do it and telling everyone the only way to engage with other people is to scream accusations at them...

So the smart tactic is to make a honey trap and invite them in, where they can be contained away from the rest of us.

The day the politics forum here gets shut down is the day the rest of the site becomes unusable. Lets hope that day doesn't ever come.

Personally (and I know it’s a cliche but…) I think the biggest creator of the current polarisation comes from social media.

Social media’s entire aim is to generate a reaction, make people like, love, angry etc. The more extreme the emotion the more likely people are to click that button, as such often headlines have bugger all to do with actual story content and more about generating outrage.

I remember recently reading the story “RDJ refuses to apologise for Tropic Thunder!” a story clearly pointing out the “Woke mob” were going after Tropic Thunder…but where they? When I read the article this is what it said…

1. When it came out the whole RDJ black-face thing was controversial in 2007. This is true. Nothing to do with any WM now.
2. There was controversy in 2018 when an American football player dressed as one of the characters for Halloween. Again not now.
3. The RDJ interview was from 2021. Still not current.
4. One person…that’s right…ONE PERSON had called for the film to be boycotted.

No mob, no recent fuss, it was literally a story about nothing, but here’s the funny thing…Tropic Thunder’s message is one about societal injustice. Brandon T Jackson’s character (Alpa Chino) rails AGAINST Kirk Lazarus in that role BECAUSE good black roles are hard to come by and here’s this white guy taking it instead. THAT WAS THE POINT.

The best way to beat social media BS is to read articles more and react to headlines less, even though that’s what we’ve been programmed to do for the last 15 years. That way we’ll probably find we agree more and disagree less.

Have a great Sunday, everyone.

 

[tenyari]

Personally (and I know it’s a cliche but…) I think the biggest creator of the current polarisation comes from social media.

Social media’s entire aim is to generate a reaction, make people like, love, angry etc. The more extreme the emotion the more likely people are to click that button, as such often headlines have bugger all to do with actual story content and more about generating outrage.

Yes. But we probably don't want to go too deep into that in the AH forum. That would be for the Politics forum if it was possible to have a sane thread there.

The so-called Google algorithm (because they perfected it, but it's probably more Facebook's).

To get you to keep clicking in, "I" need to get you emotionally engaged.

So you look for a story about X, and I present an article on X that is heavy with opinion, because opinions get you emotional. Then I offer up some recommendations that go deeper into the opinion, as they slowly drift away from any facts. They've tested this and found it can take as few as '3 links' to go from reading about religious curiosity to landing on a terrorist recruitment cell's offerings...

That's a model that was tragically perfected during the ISIS conflict, but is also in use by the far ends of political spectrums around the world. It gets people to rallies, protects, local government meetings, showing at schools and churches of the "enemy" armed and 'ready to go'... and more.

None of us are immune. Do a very careful read of the recent news you've been exposed to. Look for opinions. They're almost always there. Note that raw bland facts are nearly fully absent or quickly moved past '19 inches of rain downtown' is quickly noted and then someone is blamed for the damage or at the least, someone is interviewed who states an opinion about it.

"Back in the day", they'd just tell you there were 19 inches of rain, then move on to telling you about the cat in the tree. Now we have to offer up an opinion, even if it's not a biased on "yeah the rain sucks", "lazy good for nothing old man let his cat out again".

I've been working a lot lately to find news that lacks an opinion piece of any kind and it's extremely hard to do. That said because I don't use social media I'm a little bit ahead of the other people I know.

Another problem of both social media and the Internet is the loss of the ability to forget. Human beings change, and we change our opinions as we mature and learn more. Yet with Social Media people love to screenshot what someone said and now you're stuck in the moment - you're not allowed to evolve your views. People will keep reminding you of them, and you will keep feeling a need to defend them, which prevents you from self-reflecting and evolving them.

The very act of 'owning someone' by screenshotting what they did, and then showing it to them accusingly - is the very thing that makes that act worse. You don't shame someone with that, you force them to harden their stance defensively.

So someone who makes a mildly bad statement, gets called out for it, and then starts to form an identity around protecting themselves from being shamed by hardening that stance into a more radical view. I know a lot of people will be unable to realize examples of what I'm referring to except for those people that are aligned against them. And if I named some examples we'd fall into debates and arguments.

But this is universal. If you can find an example of it among someone who's on "the other side" - you better be sure there's an equally bad example on your own side.


Social Media:

1. lures us in to extremes through emotional engagement.
2. Causes our information to be presented in opinion rather than fact based formats.
3. Is used to prevent us from being able to naturally 'forget', self and other forgive, and move forward.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

Yes. But we probably don't want to go too deep into that in the AH forum. That would be for the Politics forum if it was possible to have a sane thread there.

The so-called Google algorithm (because they perfected it, but it's probably more Facebook's).

To get you to keep clicking in, "I" need to get you emotionally engaged.

So you look for a story about X, and I present an article on X that is heavy with opinion, because opinions get you emotional. Then I offer up some recommendations that go deeper into the opinion, as they slowly drift away from any facts. They've tested this and found it can take as few as '3 links' to go from reading about religious curiosity to landing on a terrorist recruitment cell's offerings...

That's a model that was tragically perfected during the ISIS conflict, but is also in use by the far ends of political spectrums around the world. It gets people to rallies, protects, local government meetings, showing at schools and churches of the "enemy" armed and 'ready to go'... and more.

None of us are immune. Do a very careful read of the recent news you've been exposed to. Look for opinions. They're almost always there. Note that raw bland facts are nearly fully absent or quickly moved past '19 inches of rain downtown' is quickly noted and then someone is blamed for the damage or at the least, someone is interviewed who states an opinion about it.

"Back in the day", they'd just tell you there were 19 inches of rain, then move on to telling you about the cat in the tree. Now we have to offer up an opinion, even if it's not a biased on "yeah the rain sucks", "lazy good for nothing old man let his cat out again".

I've been working a lot lately to find news that lacks an opinion piece of any kind and it's extremely hard to do. That said because I don't use social media I'm a little bit ahead of the other people I know.

Another problem of both social media and the Internet is the loss of the ability to forget. Human beings change, and we change our opinions as we mature and learn more. Yet with Social Media people love to screenshot what someone said and now you're stuck in the moment - you're not allowed to evolve your views. People will keep reminding you of them, and you will keep feeling a need to defend them, which prevents you from self-reflecting and evolving them.

The very act of 'owning someone' by screenshotting what they did, and then showing it to them accusingly - is the very thing that makes that act worse. You don't shame someone with that, you force them to harden their stance defensively.

So someone who makes a mildly bad statement, gets called out for it, and then starts to form an identity around protecting themselves from being shamed by hardening that stance into a more radical view. I know a lot of people will be unable to realize examples of what I'm referring to except for those people that are aligned against them. And if I named some examples we'd fall into debates and arguments.

But this is universal. If you can find an example of it among someone who's on "the other side" - you better be sure there's an equally bad example on your own side.


Social Media:

1. lures us in to extremes through emotional engagement.
2. Causes our information to be presented in opinion rather than fact based formats.
3. Is used to prevent us from being able to naturally 'forget', self and other forgive, and move forward.

I can’t read all that.

What’s the headline?

Just kidding.

Now back to the visiting other forums news…

 

[SirBurnInside]

Other than AH I only venture into Story Ideas just to see what is getting suggested and see if it inspires anything for me to write.

The rest of the forum... meh