The mind boggles..

[Tunborough]

This story has a link to a tweet of a screen grab of the original German. I can't independently vouch for its authenticity, or offer a translation: https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/kfc-ger ... -1.6148927

[Nanohedron]

It would not have been spam though.

Right. I used C&F's example strictly as an illustration that with semi-automated systems, human agency is still required in tying up loose ends. IOW, when it comes to semi-automated systems, what's true for ChiffCo® is going to be just as true for KFC; the rest is details. A semi-automated system won't do my part for me; I'm the "semi-" part, and it's not optional. Done right, it's about as foolproof as you get because it's monitored by humans (and that's another discussion). Doubtless there will be a corporate sharpening of emphasis on due diligence over at KFC. C&F has it easy by comparison: We don't advertise, thank goodness.

[PB+J]

I suppose you could argue that there are really many people in the US who have never met a Jewish person ...

I would argue that fewer still would know what Kristallnacht was, such are my fellow Yanks' seeming relationship with world events. Just the other day I mentioned the name "Zelensky" and the other fellow was utterly clueless. Considering the source I was especially taken aback, and had to get him up to speed just so the topic could continue, but as you might imagine, it didn't last long. I would hardly have called the matter an esoteric one, and to be frank, I was disappointed.

You will get no argument from me on this! Americans are largely oblivious! But I'm not sure were more oblivious than other countries: it's just that we have a bigger media footprint so American stuff is more widely known.

[Nanohedron]

But I'm not sure were more oblivious than other countries ...

I have stories that would support your thought.

[GreenWood]

It can be said that up to now this conversation has been about what happens in semi-automated systems, and that the details surrounding certain events are what got this conversation going. I don't think there's any question that contributors to this thread are of a like mind about those details, and letting slip with a certain amount of personal outrage is quite understandable. But given C&F's rules about political/religious content (short version: Don't), one has to tread carefully where facts can lead us to other directions. By those parameters, Steampacket's contribution is an unfortunate misstep, as well as being old news. Not that I don't sympathize, but my sympathies are not germane here; C&F's rules are still intact and in force.

Let us steer back to semi-automated systems, and how their mismanagement can be disastrous. If that topic has been exhausted, then let us make an end.

As a private forum there is every reason to respect house rules, I am going to add one link though, from a site I don't know and just happened upon

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/13/e ... -material/

because it brings into question what anyone is able to even think of what NOT to post. If you say no politics at Chiff, then I could accuse you of denial for example, under the above law. Being US based I think, you would be safe from prosecution, but not only would commentary change somehow there is also increasing intervention by european/national authorities in the workings of the web.

Personally, I would just much rather respect a site, and be prepared to be scolded or banned if for any reason I erred too far from its mood, presentation, tenets etc.

[Nanohedron]

... then I could accuse you of denial for example, under the above law.

I'm afraid that's not clear enough for me to make assumptions about your meaning. I can tell you that it smells of metamoderating. Am I wrong?

By rights a mod could have wiped out this entire thread on the basis of C&F's rules. But if there is wiggle-room to be found - and up to now there was - we also see nothing wrong with that so long as everybody tries to be mindful of where that wiggle-room ends. Much of the time, though, we don't know it until we see it.

Political or religious discussion is proscribed at C&F except through private channels, which we don't monitor. It's that simple, and you start from there. It's been that way here before Ben or I entered into Admin, lo these many years, and we still see fit to uphold this ideal. While at the same time the mods try not to be heavy-handed and unbendingly doctrinaire about it - that's no good either - sometimes a mod is given no choice. So as a point of advice, one does best not to poke the bear.

[benhall.1]

It can be said that up to now this conversation has been about what happens in semi-automated systems, and that the details surrounding certain events are what got this conversation going. I don't think there's any question that contributors to this thread are of a like mind about those details, and letting slip with a certain amount of personal outrage is quite understandable. But given C&F's rules about political/religious content (short version: Don't), one has to tread carefully where facts can lead us to other directions. By those parameters, Steampacket's contribution is an unfortunate misstep, as well as being old news. Not that I don't sympathize, but my sympathies are not germane here; C&F's rules are still intact and in force.

Let us steer back to semi-automated systems, and how their mismanagement can be disastrous. If that topic has been exhausted, then let us make an end.

As a private forum there is every reason to respect house rules, I am going to add one link though, from a site I don't know and just happened upon

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/13/e ... -material/

because it brings into question what anyone is able to even think of what NOT to post. If you say no politics at Chiff, then I could accuse you of denial for example, under the above law. Being US based I think, you would be safe from prosecution, but not only would commentary change somehow there is also increasing intervention by european/national authorities in the workings of the web.

Personally, I would just much rather respect a site, and be prepared to be scolded or banned if for any reason I erred too far from its mood, presentation, tenets etc.

Ah. Jonathan Turley. Best not to delve too much into those murky waters. And that is probably saying too much ... Don't ask. And by that I mean that I'm saying as a Mod, "Don't ask".

[GreenWood]

I don't know what meta moderating is . What I do know is how gag laws worked in Spain, how aggregating news or sharing clips was ended there, "right to be forgotten" enforced. I also know enough of the atmosphere online in northern europe and how far laws go there in managing discourse on the web.

Per the quote, what I meant was that sites HAVE TO fit in to legal protocol of a country or group of countries. Twitter is finding this out, there are several US sites that just don't bother in EU because of data protection law or possibly cookie format. My point is that if someone posts on a theme which happens to also be political, and you erase that, what would stop the poster accusing the site of discrimination or denial ? This is the argument against these sort of laws, that they can be so arbitrarily or broadly applied that it is not possible to know what to make of them. In the UK the long discussion I once mentioned at another site, there it was ownership and so responsibility of what was posted that was causing dilemna and argument. In short a site was acting ahead of the law out of caution but to the detriment of a member. That eventually raised questions of if members should have positive ID.

Maybe I make it sound more complex than it is, but sincerely I was wondering where that would place a site in terms of responsibilities or choice of moderation. That is relevant because it is human monitoring part of automation, even if Mr. Gumby's example was obvious enough.

@Benhall

I didn't and don't ask, I don't know him or his site at all beyond that article.

[GreenWood]

In the US companies seem to have ultimate decision over content (that is legal) , in Germany "put-backs" occur beyond terms of service on the grounds of "constitutional guarantee" (whatever that is decided to be, in our hypothetical case a take-down being challenged as a "denial").

"Intermediaries have a right to police their platforms (‘virtuelles Hausrecht’14) and must have the right to delete uploaded content in order to avoid liability (Kettemann, 2019). But opinions that are protected under Art. 5 (1) (1) Basic Law (GG) enjoy a higher level of protection (from deletion by a private actor) than other forms of expression. The generic terms in the BGB allow for and demand an interpretation that ensures that constitutional guarantees are being observed in contractual relations and by private actors. Thus, the violation of the terms of service does not always suffice to justify a deletion of a statement if it is protected under Art. 5 (1) (1) Basic Law (GG), thus restricting the rights of Facebook under Artt. 2, 12, 14 Basic Law (GG) (Maunz, Dürig, & Grabenwarter, 2019, Art. 5 (1) (2) para. 106, 143).""

https://policyreview.info/articles/anal ... ed-content


Here is Foreign Policy on EU censorship

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/25/th ... is-europe/


There just is not a way to say that these laws don't affect moderation, imho. Even in US access for european readers, and attempts at global censorship potentially play on any site. I'm just thankful for those moderating and running decent sites, hope they don't get hassle. I think the US approach is by far the better.

[Nanohedron]

I don't know what meta moderating is .

Publicly telling the mods their jobs - that's the shortest answer.

https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/viewt ... 9#p1038859

See points 5 and 6. You won't see the word "metamoderating", but that's what we call it. It's a good word. Very concise. If you think that there is something the mods should be doing, or doing differently, then contact us by PM. We always listen. Who knows? We may even agree. But in public is not the place for it.

It should be borne in mind that our no-politics/religion rule oppresses no one in that it allows no favoritism: Should someone publicly post promoting my own dearest-held religious or political views, I must still delete or similarly deal with the offense; as I said earlier, my sympathies are not germane, for the rule holds for all. It follows that the mod must apply the same impartiality regardless of content, and that is about as just and fair as it gets. Again, PMs are free of such restrictions. I confess I'm not interested in how European statutes interpret this, as we think ours is an honest, fair, rational, and correct approach to keeping the peace on a private site such as this. And we learned this approach from hard experience. As has been seen here, sometimes we toy around with stretching the envelope, but usually that ends with a bang rather than a whimper: IOW, not well. Consent to this rule is one of the conditions for membership, and that consent is assumed by the very act of posting. If you want to talk politics, you are quite free to do so elsewhere - but C&F is foremost a music site, after all, and the Pub is just for the off-topic stuff, and that within limits. Whether in the other forums or the Pub, public posting here carries limitations, and those limits apply to all, be they mod or regular member.

I'm getting the impression, GreenWood, that you haven't yet acquainted yourself with our policy compendium:

https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/viewt ... =1&t=84192

Do have a look. It's a great source for guidelines on how we roll around here. No need to swallow and memorize it all in one go - even the mods can't do that - but treat it as a reference for those times when you have questions about how to proceed in a matter at C&F. I think you'll find it well-reasoned. If you can't find what you need there, contact a mod, and we'll work it out.

[GreenWood]

I should not have used the "I" "you" in the example maybe, but that was meant informally as a question of where that would place moderation. It is a thorny topic, because it goes straight to the level of respect members might feel due, or inversely the sense of management the owner of a site feels they have.

I know european web format it is not an existing US reality, however the tendency is attempted international integration. Given the OP context of automated vs moderated , then the level of moderation absent or required, as well as in terms of content, is also relevant to understanding any responsibilities online or via messaging. i.e. the topic is how this is handled in Germany (vs US)

Not to forget either that the original story occured in Germany, under German law, so it cannot be said the story as posted is not subject of it somehow.

It is also possible to take the story headline and read it in a manner that makes out the complaint as just full politicisation. I won't do that so as not to cause offence.

Anyway, like a moth to a flame, mention of monarchy, nation, religion etc. with the slightest notion of complaint or recommendation is to invite argument. I think you will find that most if not every comment of mine that brushes close is in reaction to a position of those listed and placed by another, and my tending towards a reduction to absurdity. For direct example, above is mentioned... Lewinsky was it? There is hardly a more political opening of a name than that, and I could go on and elaborate more than I should. You might not want certain characters suggested to a family audience is all I would want to air publicly.

I will say one thing though, and it is not meant as confrontational, fear of being admonished or banned doesn't exist this side, all the effort of good presentation is out of a normal sense of respect. I don't mind being told or reminded, explained to or having to explain either. If there were outright disagreement, it would be accepted as such without resentment.

Thanks.