Community Moderation ( Content Policy, We-Written ) #MindsGaming #OP #OpenMinds

Power To The People should be for the people by the people, not handed down to people and enforced with brute force.

1. Here we will discuss the content policy in full, and we-write it as we go along with the final product at the bottom of this blog. We are trying to fix these issues over attacking the network about the issues, but in full we can all agree many issues with the new content policy exists that we the people do not agree with.

2. We will discuss how removing the app or implementing a way to circumvent these issues with the google play store are possible and how immediate action needs to happen in these regard and why.

3. We will be hitting point by point with its flaws and concept and apparent open fixes if we have one making a new “content policy” that will be posting in full at the bottom of this page

4. Before we begin we would like to say that we feel we need to push Minds back in the correct direction in the most postie way possible, we do not want the next news network with bias rules, banning offenses based on opinions and personal judgments or A nontransparent policy with many loopholes.

5. This blog has been logged on the Minds git as “requests” for a real content policy for the people. The link is here.

6. Text in quotes are directly from the content policy you can read the content policy here. Text not in quotes are our personal input and request to others users to encourage over the current policy to the powers that are, as they are now.

“The goal of Minds is to have fair, transparent and ethical moderation practices.”

We will use the above terms “fair”, “transparent” and “ethical” to define how the current content policy does not meet any of these key points.

“To ensure that decisions are made as democratically as possible, we developed a Jury System based on the Santa Clara Principles to review appeals. The jury consists of 12 unique, active users whose objective is to vote on appeals. If 75% or more agree with the appeal, the administrative action is overturned. For more information about the jury system, read our blog.”

This is simple math here 75% is a majority however not a base majority or “court” majority for a judgment

“The current content moderation system functions as follows:”

“User reports content or channel → Minds accepts or rejects report → If accepted, user is notified and given chance to appeal → If appealed, a jury of Minds users votes on appeal.”

In no way is this fundamentally transparent:

1.) Users do not know who is reporting content, this is an unfair an bias system why are you following my channel and why can’t I know you are trolling me and reporting on the line content? What happened to your channel is your voice? In most states you have

You have a right to:

• know the crime or crimes with which you have been charged.

• to know the identity of the police officers who are dealing with you.

• "At the federal level, a judgment is defined in the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as "a decree and any order from which an appeal lies" and does not include "recitals of pleadings, a master's report, or a record of prior proceedings."

A judgment must address all of the issues raised with respect to the rights and liabilities of the parties. If a judgment is rendered without addressing all the rights and liabilities, the action is not ended and the claims of the parties may be revised before the entry of a judgment that determines all of the issues raised."

• "Default judgment: If the defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend against the action, a default judgment may be entered. If the plaintiff's claim is for a fixed amount of money, then the plaintiff can request that the clerk enter judgment for that amount along with costs against the defendant. Otherwise, the plaintiff will be required to appear before the court and present evidence for the damages or relief requested to receive a default judgment.[88] If the defendant can demonstrate "good cause" for not responding to the default judgment, then the court may set aside the judgment at its discretion."

• "Interlocutory injunction: A party can seek an interlocutory injunction relating to a proceeding. The court must provide reasons for either granting or denying an interlocutory injunction." -Wiki

2.) Who is accepting or rejecting and why are they doing so is also a major issue, as of we are to appeal what are we appealing and why? I think this goes under knowing your crime as well.

3.) Notified where? This is not said defined or manageable without a dedicated notification for this process.

4.) How are we appealing again this is not transparent and as we will go over again, this is not even on the network to be called anywhere close to transparent.

“Strike Offense”

“Users will receive a strike for certain violations of the Content Policy. Users will be notified about the strike, which term was violated, and which piece of content was in violation. All strikes can be appealed to a Minds Jury. Individual strikes will expire after 90 days.”

Many issues lie just inside here, what is appealing a strike and again how would one do this? Is this a separate entity from the post itself? One would think if an appeal in general passed then no disciplinary actions would take place.

“The following violations will result in a strike:

“Untagged NSFW Post (three strikes required for each individual NSFW category)

• Strike 1 = Warning

• Strike 2 = 2nd Warning

• Strike 3 = Full channel marked with NSFW category”

It may surprise many I care not about this NSFW rules and think they are fair, however I would like an option to mark my channel mature by default as well as groups to make this manageable. If you don’t see my channel because you have the google based app use Firefox mobile it works and looks better anyways.

“Harassment and Spam

• Strike 1 = Warning

• Strike 2 = 2nd Warning

• Strike 3 = Ban

Spam may result in an immediate ban if determined to be malicious or by use of a bot.”

I do not think we should be banning for petty things and this should be a suspension at most, again I point to “bot hunters” and trolls that could easily take advantage of these rules when users are not active. I do agree with the bot ending but that's about it.

“Immediate Ban Offense”

“Users will be immediately banned for certain violations of the Content Policy. Users will be notified about the ban and which term was violated, but they will not be able to see the content that was in violation as it will have to be removed from Minds. Appeals on immediate bans will be reviewed by the Minds admins and not a jury due to the nature of the content.

• Illegal (terrorism, pedophilia, extortion, fraud, revenge porn, sex trafficking)

• Personal and confidential information (doxxing)

• Malware

• Token manipulation

• Impersonation

• Incites a true threat of violence”

Many of these terms are not defined by Minds like “impersonation” or “token manipulation” and I also believe a list of “immediately banned channels should exist for community review. I also think that an immediate ban or removal of channels and content is against the user bill of rights.

“Boost Policy”

“Boost is the advertising network on Minds. Users may exchange Minds Tokens to “Boost” their content and receive views from the network. Users may not Boost any content that is in violation of our Content Policy. Additionally, users may not Boost content that:"

Lets just change it to news network okay guys, because this is crazy or at least let use create independent networks that do not have to follow these outrageous rules.

• "Appeals on a moderation decision"

{What an “appeals on moderation decision” to date has not been defined}

•" Exceeds Boost rate limits;"

{“I think this is more of a coding issue than a user issue}

• "Is a Help & Support request;"

{ I’m be blunt here, No this is freedom of expression, stop crying so much. This is also not a moral, transparent or fair overlook of the community if the community can not voice it’s opinion on the network and certainly is not community based in any way, shape or form. }

• Is selling Minds Tokens;

{Whatever you can have it, but at least define the rules of selling tokens.}

• Contains content from a banned user

{Why does that matter to me? Are you saying I cant promote and old blog, podcast, or video because a user was banned that I may not even known about? I’m honestly confused how is this fair?.}

• Onchain payment failed

{I think it is important for users to be able to reach out for help on issues with tokens, new or old.}

• Original post has been removed”

{Well where is my judgment from an actual judge as defined in the bill of rights?}

“If you would like to appeal a Boost rejection, you may do so by emailing [email protected] with the post in question and the reasons for why you believe it should be accepted.”

This also misses many points of “fair”, “transparent” and “ethical".

1.) Using a third party is not transparent in any way

2. ) It’s not fair to the users to not have the option to have appeals to be open to the community

3.) Why are we not using reported content in settings

Removal Of the App

Removal of the Minds app from the google play store would allow users once again free speech, and remove many of the “boot rules” I think however alternative ways to remain on the app store are also possible as @MedWorthy goes over very well in his blog “The Many Faces Of The Minds App”

Proposal To Users Of the Community

Below is our personal edit and suggestions to make this content policy valuable,relatable as well as “fair”, “transparent” and “ethical".

Content Policy

It is the goal of Minds and its users to have fair, transparent and ethical moderation practices.

To ensure that decisions are made as democratically as possible, we developed a Jury System based on the Santa Clara Principles to review appeals. The jury consists of 12 unique, active users whose objective is to vote on appeals. If 55% or more agree with the appeal, the administrative action is overturned. You will not be punished for having an opinion not matching other Minds users.

The current content moderation system functions as follows:

Strike Offense

Users will receive a strike for certain violations of the Content Policy. Users will be notified about the strike in an independent notification tab , which term was violated, and which piece of content was in violation. All strikes can be appealed to a Minds Jury inside 30 days. Individual strikes will also expire after 30 days.

The following violations will result in a strike for NSFW content:

(You can manage your channel as “NSFW” by default in settings)

Untagged NSFW Post (three strikes required for each individual NSFW category)

• Strike 1 = Warning

• Strike 2 = 2nd Warning

• Strike 3 = Full channel marked with NSFW category

Harassment and Spam

• Strike 1 = Warning

• Strike 2 = 2nd Warning

• Strike 3 = Suspension tell appealed. Max of 160 days to appeal.

Spam may result in an immediate ban if determined to be malicious or by use of a bot.

Harassment is defined as making multiple accounts to attack, troll or generally make an unwanted presence after being blocked by that user.

If not appealed account will go on an open list available to the community at large.

Immediate Ban Offense

Users will be immediately banned for certain violations of the Content Policy. Users will be notified about the ban and which term was violated, but they will not be able to see the content that was in violation as it will have to be removed from Minds. Appeals on immediate bans will be reviewed by the Minds admins and not a jury due to the nature of the content.

• Illegal (terrorism, paedophilia, extortion, fraud, revenge porn, sex trafficking)

• Personal and confidential information (doxxing)

• Malware

• Token manipulation

(Defined as using bots or multiple accounts for the purpose of accumulating tokens)

• Impersonation

(Fan accounts are allowed, if defined as so in bio)

• Incites a true threat of violence

Boost Policy

Boost is the news network on Minds. Users may exchange Minds Tokens to “Boost” their content and receive views from the network. Users may not Boost any content that is in violation of our Content Policy. Additionally, users may not Boost content that:

• Is illegal as defined by the US court of law.

• Is not marked according appropriately to content (E)

If you would like to appeal a Boost rejection, you may do so by going to reported content https://www.minds.com/settings/reported-content or privately by emailing [email protected] with the post in question and the reasons for why you believe it should be accepted.

Ending