Threaded Index     Date Index     BoyChat



Re: I will say...

Posted by mark194 on 2024-September-18 09:47:41, Wednesday
In reply to Re: I will say... posted by monkeyLostInHead on 2024-September-18 08:46:31, Wednesday




Yeah, that's definitely a problem. And I think you're a good example of someone who could wrongfully get banned or added to the "warning list" if this were a rule.

I used the word "toxic" because that's the terminology larry used, but I don't think that's the right word. I think there could be "toxic" posters that wouldn't deserve to get permabanned or added to the warning list, whatever the measure may be. Like, if someone posts a video of a boy and says "I think this boy is cute", and someone replies saying "No, he's actually really ugly. Fuck you for even saying that, you fucking piece of shit," that would be toxic, but I don't think that person would need to be added to a warning list at the top of the page.

I think a better term would be "malicious and dangerous". My definition for this would be the one I gave in my previous reply: demonstrably acting in bad faith (i.e. they hate BoyChat/BC's users/pedophiles in general) and demonstrably posing a risk to naive people. There would be less subjectivity with this definition or a similar one. Take you for example. Whether or not you're "toxic" is subjective, but I don't think it's possible to argue that you're demonstrably acting in bad faith or that anything you're saying could be dangerous to naive new users. Subjectivity might still be an issue, sure, but I think it'd be insignificant enough that a rule based on this definition could be worthwhile.

Do you think there are users on here who could subjectively meet or not meet this definition? I can't think of any. The best example I could think of would be beracine (you could maybe argue that his calls for dumb activism shit are dangerous), but I don't think someone could reasonably argue that he's demonstrably acting in bad faith.

There's obviously always going to be some level of subjectivity - there's subjectivity with the moderation we have now, and with any moderation - but if the standards are high enough (i.e. you can't just speculate about whether someone is malicious and dangerous, there has to be actual conclusive evidence), I don't think it would be sufficient to completely throw out this idea.



Follow ups:



Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?