SoylentNews

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." :- misattributed to Einstein

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." :- Einstein

There is a lot in this Meta but it is necessary to have certain aspects of the site's operation explained in detail so that subsequent elements make sense and are understandable by everyone. The initial lessons from the Trial of Flagging by Journal Owners appear later in this Meta.

Permanent Banning

Banning someone from the site is a serious decision which is why it is rarely considered. It has always been recognised that the act of banning someone is never going to be easy to enforce. Some may wonder why banning is even considered at all, and the explanation is relatively simple. Some acts – in this case doxxing – can have serious repercussions and kolie has described elsewhere those potentially applicable under US law an in particular to the state of Oregon.

The rules exist to ensure that we maintain a viable site where people are free to discuss the topics presented in an adversarial yet friendly atmosphere. If the site's rules are not enforced then they are meaningless and, over time, they will be ignored. We are very tolerant of minor infractions but at some point it is necessary to remind somebody of the reason for the rule and that is often all that is needed. The next level usually involves moderation, possibly with an Admin-To-User message warning that the user might receive a temporary ban if (s)he continues. If temporary bans do not work then, in extreme cases, it is necessary to employ a permanent ban. Permanent bans require the approval of the Board.

Admin-to-User messages can only be used to communicate from staff to account holders; the only way to communicate with Anonymous Cowards is directly via a comment.

Doxxing

During the last few days some have challenged the definition of doxxing. In particular, they have argued that the addresses given are obviously fake and therefore are not doxxing. The rules are quite clear. It isn't possible for staff to recognise every address as being genuine or fake and so it is always assumed to be genuine and treated as such.

Kolie's amusing and robust counter can be seen here.

Sock-Puppets and Multiple Accounts

Each person is allowed to have one account which gives him the right to vote on the site. They are owned by a community member and they are not transferable nor can they be shared accounts. Additional accounts can be created providing that they are notified to, and agreed by, the Administration and are required to fulfill a specific function e.g upstart and Arthur T Knackerbracket (story submission bots), Acfriendly (journal to facilitate AC participation in front page stories) etc. These additional bots do not have voting rights nor should they receive moderation points.

Fake accounts are those accounts created to use the site often by persons not intending to participate in discussions. They are usually created for advertising purposes and might also be created by commercial organisations. As most people never even see them they cause little problem other than take up an account identity. However, occasionally they engage in activities that are not aligned to the site's purpose and they are disabled. Accounts created entirely in, or sometimes using, foreign languages are disabled as a matter of routine. Some of these have been associated with material that is illegal under US Federal or State laws.

Sock Puppets are accounts that are created usually with the intention of giving the user an unfair advantage with regards to voting or moderation abuse. They are sometimes intended to give the user an alternative account to use when their primary account would attract a ban, or to use when their primary account has already be given a temporary ban. Very often the sock puppet account is employed to positively moderate inflammatory or abusive posts made Anonymous Cowards, thus preventing the community from controlling such material by selecting a reasonable viewing level, while leaving the sock puppet account apparently innocent of any wrongdoing.

Historically, some users have created multiple sock-puppets as were used increasingly during the "Sock-Puppet-War" between 2018 and 2021. Each user employed the sock-puppets in an attempt to prevent the other from expressing his or her personal view and with the further hope that their opponent might be banned from the site. One person has created hundreds of sock-puppets. The names of many of these sock puppets contain doxxing material or express unacceptable statements.

I have been watching specific sock-puppets for some time to try to understand their purpose. As recently as earlier this week I disabled 6 such accounts. Their creator is known. There are as yet others that I am still analysing.

Real-World Politics

In the USA in particular, but elsewhere too, the political situation has become very polarised. There is much hatred between opposing political factions which has sometimes resulted in violence or other physical and verbal abuse. This site is NOT the place to continue to express your dislike of other community members who do not share your own political views. Demanding that someone be banned or continually punished for having a particular political view is abuse and it will be treated as such by the staff.

Everyone in our community has the same rights to express their opinion, and any attempt to prevent one of them from doing so is unacceptable. If you find yourself having to name a person in a comment it is often the sign that you are intending that comment as a personal attack. If a topic or journal is intended to discuss a political viewpoint it is entirely correct to do so, but that does not include personal attacks against other community members.

Journals

Journals are for account holders to discuss any topic that is legal under US and State laws, but which would not be considered for front page use. The topics do not have to be written to suit everybody in the community. They do not have to meet with the approval of individual community members who have no right to demand that the journal owner stops writing such journals or take other action to intentionally disrupt the subsequent journal discussion.

...And if you have managed to get this far I hope that what I have written will now make more sense than it might have done before and you will now understand its relevance:

Flagging Trial

The removal of non-account Anonymous Cowards from the main pages has made discussion far more acceptable to many people. Unfortunately, it has not had the same effect in the journals which a minority of ACs have been using to disrupt the discussions and abuse the journal owners and other community members. As a result, fewer people are using the journals to introduce their own discussions, and fewer people are participating in journal discussions.

Several journal owners requested that we investigate ways of controlling the abuse. It was apparent that such control would be a significant task for staff with the current software and data. The site has always had a means of removing illegal or unacceptable content from display. From the very first days of the site there has been a facility to delete comments from the database. However, the method involved hard deletes (permanent deletions from the database) but that left the child comments also inaccessible. Soft deleting (flagging) was adopted in 2024 as a far better solution. The use of the flagging is different from the community's perception than the previous system because:

• It is immediately apparent that flagging has taken place. Previously comments just 'disappeared' and were irretrievable.
• The community needs to know that the system is not being abused, which could be provided by having increased visibility of the processes involved
• Such visibility raises several issues – why has a comment been flagged? who would do the flagging? and how would it be managed?

After discussions with some journal owners they agreed to assist in a trial in which journal owners themselves would be able to exercise some control over abuse and/or disruption in their journals. There were 3 journal owners initially and others participated as their journals appeared.

There is one permanently banned account – aristarchus. Even before his ban we have over several years tried various methods including moderation, arranging for him to rejoin the community with some restrictions, and deletion of his comments. This is not new and goes back to the very early days of the site. In 2014 he was already abusing some of the same people that he abuses today. His complaints about blocked IP addresses and censorship go back to at least 2016. This alone indicates that the blocked IP addresses are unrelated to any other function and are automatic within the Rehash software. The site rules state that technical means can be employed to remove such comments and that now implies flagging.

Identifying his posts was initially marred by the occasional mis-identification. Where they were brought to my attention they were corrected and apologies made – publicly and privately. Since the start of 2025 the amount of data available to us has increased in its nature, quantity and accuracy. It is far more reliable today than it was. Nevertheless, there is no automatic flagging and a person remains the final decision maker based on the originator and the contents of the comment in its entirety.

Findings and Recommended Actions

• Journal owners are reluctant to use the flagging mechanism for perfectly understandable reasons. They would prefer an inclusive, community-based discussion. They do not want the abuse and disruption and flagging provides them with the means to control such occurrences should they wish to use it. Action: Consider starting all journals set to Logged-in Users only as default. Journal owners should still have the opportunity to open the discussion wider if they wish.
• There is no reason to remove the facility from journals for those journal owners who might now, or in the future, wish to use flagging to control abuse in their journal. Action: Leave the facility in situ. We may also need it for future trials.
• Some readers still find the reduced banner impairs their ability to read a discussion. Action: Investigate still further whether it is possible for the banner be reduced further in size – perhaps just to the comment number in a smaller font? It is recognised that the fragility of parts of Rehash might make this very difficult to achieve.
• The management of flagging will require additional data to be recorded with each flagged item. For example, if a comment contains doxxing it should record the comment and also set a flag to prevent it ever being released. There may be additional requirements as the existing software is enhanced. Action: Keep as is for the moment but be aware that changes will be required.
• The management of flagging will either require additional staff for it to be maintainable over a period of time, or significant additional software to assist in the management task. Action: If no additional manpower is available the next best option is to make the site Logged-in Users only. Reverting to a previous state (i.e. relying on basic moderation) will only result in the same outcome as it did previously.
• User requests for a flagging to be reviewed (not simply viewed) must be by the person who made the original comment. Action: How to do this for ACs is not yet identified. Otherwise the system can be easily defeated by numerous unjustified requests for reviews by miscellaneous people..
• The decision to flag a comment can for the moment only be made by a person. Despite the process being far more reliable now than it initially was it is still below the level that would result in an automatic system being viable.
• A clear policy that is acceptable to the community must be provided to state clearly when and how flagging is permissible. Action: A policy must be written with community consultation to fulfill this requirement.

Your comments are invited. ACs will have the opportunity to make comments in a journal. While AC views and opinions are welcome any abuse in that journal will be treated appropriately

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.

1. Submissions from named community accounts.
2. 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.
3. Submissions from other anonymous sources.
4. 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.

We are aware of the significant number of 50x responses that users are experiencing from the site. The problem was recognised about 1 week ago and there is much investigative work going on behind the scenes.

The actual cause is difficult to identify. As of Saturday there is new software in place which is trying to find how often the 50x responses occur, while trying to correlate the occurrences with other functions in Rehash. This is a time consuming process. Some users have been assisting by reporting on IRC #soylent when they receive such a response. If you would like to help please report when the 50x response was received with a precise time so that we can find the corresponding query in the server logs, exactly what function were you doing that appeared to trigger it, and how long the problem lasted? If you also know your own IP address it would be very helpful but we understand that many of you will be reluctant to give this information.

In most cases the problem clears itself in less than 10 seconds but there have been periods of unresponsiveness that have lasted several minutes in some rare cases.

FIXED - at least until we find out that it isn't.... [Added at 2025-1005 19:00Z--JR] See also here.