It has been a while since I was able to update the community on various aspects of our site.
Back in the Saddle
Many of you will recall that I had to step back from many of my site duties to begin a period of medical treatment. That has now been completed and, although it was not 100% successful, I am feeling better than when it started. During that time I was asked, where possible, to continue to help manage the site until replacements could be found for various roles.
Unfortunately we have not been successful in finding anyone to help administer the site. It might appear a daunting task, and the job list is appreciable, but many of those tasks take literally 2 minutes to complete. Perhaps the most important role is being available to answer the queries that arrive at admin@soylentnews.org. They are often simple to resolve and again only take a few minutes, but the emails have to be checked fairly frequently, at least daily. It is usually an empty mailbox. I would be more than happy to step down from this role but I realise that some may be wary of volunteering to take on the task. You needn't be, and if several people wish to consider it the current job list can easily be divided between them. So if you are interested then please contact admin@soylentnews.org and I can start to show you around without any firm commitment on your part. If you do not fancy it you can say 'no thanks' and remain as a community member. However, I cannot say what the future will hold for me and I cannot keep the role indefinitely. I would rather have a person or two who at least are aware of how the site works before I disappear at some point in the future.
I have approached the Board and offered my services, although I would prefer to hand the role over to someone else. This should actually be as a result of an election process but unless someone wishes to step forward there is little point. The Board has agreed to me taking on the role again, for which I am grateful.
Jelizondo
'jelizondo' joined the editorial team a month or two back and has hit the ground running, having already published approaching 200 stories. Not only has he brought an extra pair of hands to the team but he has also brought a new perspective on what we do. It is always useful to have a fresh look at what we do and to question why we do it that way. Often there are very good reasons but it is sometimes easy to forget how the team has developed since the fledgling days in 2014. While he is a recent addition to the team he has been a community member from the first few weeks of the site's creation. I'm sure you will make him feel welcome.
Flagging Trial
Some of you will be unaware of 'flagging'. Staff with a specific seclev have had the ability to delete comments from the database since the site was created . This is necessary because legally we are required to remove certain material. Initially the deletion was a 'hard' delete and although the database remained in a stable condition, the linking of comments below a deletion was broken so that while they existed in the database but could not be seen. kolie corrected this to a soft delete - 'deleted' comments would not display but subsequent comments still displayed as they should. It is a far better system. However, it is a system that is still under development although the basic system is fully functional. It is a continuation of the community discussions that kolie held in his journal over the last year or two.
With the relatively small (but slowly growing) community the number of journals being used has also fallen. Furthermore, they have been targeted by ACs who in a small number of cases have abused the journals and made them unusable for the owners purpose. Flagging such abuses removes the abuse from view but of course others rightly complained that there was no community visibility of flagged material. Thus it is necessary to develop a management system which allows a flagged comment to be reviewed, returned to view if it has been incorrectly flagged, edited if the offending material can be removed, or blocked entirely in the event of CSAM, doxxing, banned users, or unacceptable material being found.
Journal owners complained that their journals were being spoiled by the antics of the few ACs and as a trial we have given the journal owners the ability to flag material that they believe is intended to disrupt their discussions or to abuse the journal owner directly. That trial is running at the moment. Several journal owners have used it, but there is no obligation on any journal owner to do so if they do not wish to. It is in addition to the current moderation system and it is not intended to replace it - indeed argument and moderation should be used if it is simply a difference of opinion. The alternative would be to make journals accessible only to logged-in users in the same way that front page stories are currently published.
Once the trial has finished we should be in a much better position to decide how the function will be managed: who will review the flagged comments, how quickly must reviews be carried out, and how will the contents be edited while showing clearly that such editing has taken place etc?
It has to be realised that flagging only affects a very small number of anonymous posters but they are intent on disrupting the site wherever they can. Unfortunately that is mainly in the few journals that are active, but it is also seen in Polls.
Once the trial has been completed it is intended to present the findings to the community for discussion and possible approval.
Finally...
As usual, we encourage the community to submit potential stories for publication and discussion. We normally approach submissions with the following priorities in mind, providing that the material is suitable for discussion.
- Submissions from named community accounts.
- Submissions from Upstart - the IRC submission bot. This is because an actual user has taken the trouble to make a submission even if he/she remains anonymous.
- Submissions from other anonymous sources.
- Submissions found by search bots.
Sometimes it is not possible to stick to this set of priorities because of the need to vary story content across the topics that we cover and, regrettably, not every submission is suitable for publication. It stands to reason that the better prepared a submission is then the more likely it is to be used, and the submission guidelines are contained in the Wiki.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday October 20, @05:44PM (7 children)
Could you tell us more about the types of comments that you legally have to delete?
I am not seeking to challenge this practice, just curious about it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Monday October 20, @06:01PM
It's just the same as all the rest of the internet, they're obligated to delete all the good posts, so all that you're left with is posts like mine.
(Score: 5, Informative) by kolie on Monday October 20, @06:07PM (5 children)
As a website operator in the US, we are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that you are generally not treated as the publisher or speaker of content posted by your users. This means we would not legally required to remove most illegal content, such as:
Defamation (Libel/Slander): Even if a comment is false, malicious, and devastating to someone's reputation, Section 230 shields you from liability. You are not legally required to remove it.
Harassment or "True Threats": While these are crimes, the bar for platform liability is extremely high. The Supreme Court (in Twitter v. Taamneh) affirmed that simply hosting such content, even with general awareness, does not make you liable for aiding and abetting. Section 230 immunity generally applies.
This immunity is not absolute. There are specific, narrow exceptions where US law does require us to remove content, or creates a legal process that we must follow to avoid liability.
Here is the breakdown of some content that would trigger a legal obligation
Tier 1: Legally Mandated Reporting & Removal
Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery (NCII)
Tier 2: Removal Required to Maintain Legal Immunity
Copyright Infringement
Content Violating FOSTA-SESTA
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday October 20, @06:38PM (4 children)
Are there actual posts that fall into Tier 1 or 2? How common is this?
Do you receive takedown requests? If so, how frequent are these?
(Score: 3, Informative) by kolie on Monday October 20, @06:52PM
There's other criteria that would likely be met - these are the big ones.
From the list above - those specifically I am aware of a handful of instances - but my knowledge of the entire operations of the site isn't comprehensive or the full picture or history - single digits.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kolie on Monday October 20, @07:32PM
I'm not a lawyer and these are my understanding personally of the situation, so take it for what it is, and it isn't legal advise.
There is potential liabilities in areas like defamation, doxxing, and unprotected speech (such as "true threats" or "incitement to imminent lawless action") if a platform's actions cause it to lose Section 230 protection - for instance, by materially contributing to the illegality of the content. While Oregon has specific statutes addressing defamation and doxxing, Section 230 generally shields the platform from liability for user comments related to these torts. DMCA, CSAM, FOSTA-SESTA, these are automatic things we should be actively removing. Outside of those, Oregon law likely is key to understanding this as it applies to SN beyond the federal rules. There are things that may be an issue, categories of harmful content where liability could be unlikely but not impossible. There is a "reasonable person" standard - if a resonable reader would interpret a statement as fact, weather a reasonable person would be harassed by disclousure, how a reasonable recipient would perceive a threat. - having site policies aligned with the external legal tests would likely mitigate issues for SN operating. Section 230 protects platform from liability for defamation by users - as long as the immunity isn't jeopardized. Opinions are protected by the First Ammmendment and key to defense against defamation - factual assertion wouldn't be. Check Oregon Supreme Court Neumann v. Liles for the tests here. A platform can lose Section 230 immunity by becoming an information content provider that matterially contributes to the illegality of content. For example, editing a post from a user that says "I have some concern about the quality of work of user XYZ" - and changing it to say "User XYZ is a fraud, the platform may be held responsible for that. Moderation policies should be careful and favor REMOVING problematic comment, rather than editing them for substance as a result - editing in itself is fine but without properly understanding the implications it can be an issue.
Oregon has defamation law specific for media outlets - ORS 31.205-31.22 for example. There is mixed information if this applies to internet sources or not. Even without a direct legal obligation, having a clear process for reviewing complaints and voluntarily removing or correcting verifiably false factual statements is a best practice that can demonstrate good faith and mitigate potential legal entanglements
Doxxing itself gets fun. In the U.S., publishing truthful information is not, in itself, illegal, particularly if the information was lawfully obtained or is a matter of public record. Check the Supreme Court case Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. The government is rarelt able to punish the publication of truthful information - although this protection is furthered bolstered if the information is considered a matter of public signficance.
More recently Oregon has HB 3047. This created a specific civil cause of action for the "improper disclosure of private information". The bar for liability on this seems relatively high. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant disclosed their personal information with the specific intent to stalk, harass, or injure them, and that the disclosure actually resulted in the plaintiff being stalked, harassed, or injured. Furthermore, the harm must be such that a "reasonable person" would also have been stalked, harassed, or injured by the disclosure. Given this high standard and the protection of Section 230, it is extremely unlikely that a news platform would be held liable for a user's comment that merely posts someone's name or publicly available information.
While doxxing itself is not a specific crime in Oregon, the conduct it is often intended to incite is illegal: Harassment (ORS 166.065), Stalking (ORS 163.732), or Menacing (ORS 163.190). In light of that - our Terms of Service would benefit from explicitly prohibit comments that constitute these underlying criminal acts.
True threats are not protected speech. A "true threat" is a statement that communicates a "serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals". This is not about jokes or political hyperbole; it is about statements that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety. Relevant case law here is 2023 Supreme Court Counterman v. Colorado. A comment like "Someone should do something about that politician" is protected speech; a comment like "I am going to bring my rifle to the city council meeting on Tuesday to find Councilman XYZ" is a true threat.
There is also the Brandenburg Test. The speech must be (1) "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) "likely to incite or produce such action".
The really mandatory shit is DMCA, CSAM, Federal Sex Trafficking. Defamation/Livel, Doxxxing, these are remote possibilities of liability, there is almost no legal obligation here and is 230 protected - unless we contribute or paricipate with specific intent to cause stalking, harassment, injury. True threats / incitement we don't have a legal obligiation, but could lose 230 immunity for federal criminal law violations, and opens to civil cases. Hate Speech and Harassment, protected by 230, no direct liability for user speech, but harmful to community more than anything.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Monday October 20, @07:33PM (1 child)
We have had a couple of Tier 1 posts (CSAM) but none recently. The legal requirements were followed and the offending material reported and deleted. We have also had several posts that gave links to CSAM material but did not contain imagery themselves. They were also reported. More frequently we have had fake accounts created with content written in foreign languages. Various translation sites indicated material that some were linked to prostitution, including boys. We therefore stress that the language of this site is English - we don't care which dialect.
Tier 2 material tends to be attempts to intimidate us into accepting someone else's rights when they are not deserved - in other words scams! I can only recall 1 request to take down a post - which we did. We have not used that source again so I'm not certain that they can consider it a 'win'. We reject material that is taken (sometimes verbatim) from Slashdot stories. I can never be sure whether these submission are a genuine mistake regarding our rules or someone trying to stir up trouble. Regardless they are not used.
The major problem that we have is that, even if we are innocent, if somebody is intent on threatening us with legal action we could not even raise enough to pay for a lawyers letter challenging the threat! We therefore try to stay on the 'safe' side wherever possible.
We intentionally have a fairly constant layout for our site's stories. We include the link for the source to ensure that we attribute the work to the appropriate publications. We do not claim the material is ours but we rely on fair-use to initiate a discussion. We also include links at the end of science topics whenever possible linking to the relevant papers and journals. Increasingly such links are being paywalled even for publicly funded research.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Monday October 20, @07:45PM
Thank you for this informative post.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Monday October 20, @05:47PM (3 children)
Many of you will recall that I had to step back from many of my site duties to begin a period of medical treatment. That has now been completed and, although it was not 100% successful, I am feeling better than when it started.
Sorry to hear that. I hope there's something else they can do.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Monday October 20, @06:37PM (2 children)
I am happy that there is nothing that they have to do at the moment. I need time to recover from the last 6 months or so.
There is nothing life threatening (as far as I know!) but potentially issues in the future that could be life changing.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by corey on Monday October 20, @07:53PM
Well, sounds like positive news janrinok. Keep positive and the community here is wishing the best for you. Good to have you back.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 20, @11:01PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Monday October 20, @06:51PM (4 children)
How would one proceed if interested?
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday October 20, @08:03PM (2 children)
Either email me directly (janrinok@soylentnews.org or, admin@soylentnews.org for any administrator). If your provided email address is genuine (and it looks like it is), then I can contact you tomorrow (currently I am in bed...)
It is not a high pressure thing, it is merely an introduction to the types of things that we can be expected to do in support of the site. It is a long list but most of them only require some action very occasionally. Many are merely checks that nothing has gone off the rails....
Thank you for at least showing an interest.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Monday October 20, @08:59PM (1 child)
Please contact me too, just out of curiosity I want to learn more.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 21, @07:51PM
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 21, @07:50PM
I've had a very busy day fixing my computer - I am back online. I will respond tomorroe.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]