Date   

moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

What about group owners having "groups.io living wills"? I don't see any other way around the situation where an owner *legitimately* goes missing or gets hit by the proverbial truck. Group owners could, optionally, set up directives about what to do if and when situations occur that include others claiming they've gone missing (whether valid or not).
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:42 AM, HR Tech wrote:
I'd urge you to go with your heart and facilitate - with your personal stamp - help to those orgs you feel will make the world a better place.
Another "amen" to that. I would urge the same. (Not much to worry about re ROW, by the way - not in this case.) 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Mark Irving
 

You could perhaps apply a rule that to downgrade the Owner status in a group with three or more co-owners, action by at least two owners should be required. That would make some sorts of malice more difficult, specifically displaing a group's original owner, but it wouldn't prevent any moderator vandalising a group in other ways.

As others have noted, this is mainly a problem for the group, not something groups.io can prevent. Just make it a little more difficult.

 - Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Maria
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:40 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Groups.io is a product of global scope, and one presumably striving to be a reliable long-term service. In that light, I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

(I realize that you're advertising to that group, not for that group, but in this context I think that is a distinction without a difference.)
I understand Shal's point, but have a different reaction - and a partially European perspective FWIW.

The giants of social media ( despite all the damage they have done and continue to do to privacy and democracy) - seem to have very clear approaches (now) to content that they will no longer support ( anti-vaccine groups / alt-right and any organized hate groups/people) - they either remove ads from their accounts so no one can make money off of content like that ( youtube) or change the coding so that groups like that don't get suggested to other people, and other strategies to not help them thrive - before they get kicked off. That's their prerogative. And there are plenty of alternative sites that folks engaged in organized hate etc can and do go to. Mostly start-ups.

Groups.io ( unlike youtube/twitter/facebook/instagram) doesn't make money from advertising or data tracking. The business model here is straight forward and transparent.
Groups on groups.io are clients of Groups.io
Groups.io provides a service.

If Groups.io wants to offer that service, or upgrades to that service to organizations that fit a certain category - so be it.
It's totally within the parameters of what other businesses do ( see non-profit rates etc).

I would think this is a good opportunity to focus on what kinds of groups Groups.io wants to provide free upgrades to - and those it doesn't. As well as those it simply doesn't want to take on as clients.

Because lets be clear - all other platforms have made that choice - whether it's by tweaking algorithms, banning, or inviting.

So, rather than specifically offer a free upgrade to only Indivisible ( which i think started in 2017 shortly after the election in the USA and shortly after the world realized how their use of facebook had actually provided data to 3rd parties) - I'd suggest crafting a clear policy for non-profits, NGO's, causes, Humanitarian orgs, or organizations that combat hate and discrimination - there may be Mark Fletcher "scholarships" for here on Groups.io.  Since it's a company of global reach, I'd urge Mark to think bigger, and by all means dedicate his personal support - through his company - to the causes he feels he wants to help.

So, you can separate it and call it the Cats of Groups.io Fund, Or the MF Fund for a kinder world - or whatever you want - but I'd urge you to go with your heart and facilitate - with your personal stamp - help to those orgs you feel will make the world a better place.

Maria



moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Bruce Bowman
 

Mark -- Some of the feature suggestions made here might have marginal utility to head some of this off. Other than that, I believe it is generally be in your best interest to avoid inserting yourself into a problem. Better to fail to address 100 group hijackings than to aid and abet one of them.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Duane
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:34 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
it should be set that the only person who can remove 'Owner' status (or delete such an id) is that person themselves, and that nobody else should be able to remove it
Even that may not be as simple as it seems.  It has happened (on YG!) that an owner went missing, but was not removed from the group.  Some time later, someone got access to their account and created havoc with the group.  By removing that account, the other owners were able to bring things under control.

I don't believe there will be a simple and/or universal solution to this divisive situation.  It appears to me that only the group members can make the ultimate decision, which may include creating a new group.  In many cases, the loss of the message archive would be painful, but I've done it before and it wasn't a tragedy.  Any 'outsider' may not have all the facts and could make an incorrect decision.

Duane


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Jeremy H
 

My thought is that - rather than mess about establishing an extra 'founder' status - it should be set that the only person who can remove 'Owner' status (or delete such an id) is that person themselves, and that nobody else should be able to remove it. And I think that is about the only technical thing that can or should be done. This would prevent someone else actually taking over a group (though you might get a situation of two rival owners) 

As to the 'political' (if I can put it that way) dimension, then the basic position is that Mark/Groups.io should endeavour not get involved (even as a referee), and to pass the issue back to the rival Owners, for them to come to an agreement - perhaps with the aid of a poll, and if they cannot, say 'a plague on both your houses', and freeze (i.e.set everything to read only) or delete the original group, and let them each set up their own replacement.

For the particular case in question, raised by a third party (Z) I think my attitude would be 'as far as groups.io is concerned, the group is (now) owned by Y, and this issue has not been raised by X, so, sorry, that's how it is' (a thought - did Y move the group without reference to X?)  

Jeremy


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On 21 May 2019, at 09:52, Victoria via Groups.Io <dr.vcaesar@...> wrote:

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

As another European (UK, where we know a thing or two about divisive politics 😉), I agree with Victoria’s comment above. However, were my political views more different, I might feel that I did not wish to be a part of such a platform, but that would be my choice.

Is it better to be completely transparent about this, or to present an entirely apparently neutral space? I tend to think that the ‘professional’ and the ‘personal’ are separate and one can present them as such.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers



moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Shal wrote: I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

 

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

 

Victoria

 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Mark,

Can we keep this a short discussion?
Certainly.

tl/dr: "Having the right to do a thing does not make it the right thing to do".

My concern would be that I wouldn't want the discussion to devolve
into a debate over politics, ...
Agreed. I don't want that either.

My concern has nothing to do with what organizations you wish to support. It has to do with the face Groups.io presents to potential users.

Groups.io is a product of global scope, and one presumably striving to be a reliable long-term service. In that light, I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

(I realize that you're advertising to that group, not for that group, but in this context I think that is a distinction without a difference.)

In fact, it is off-putting to a large number of people (those opposed to that that organization's agenda) and at best distracting to a potentially larger group of people (those outside the U.S., or at any rate uninterested in U.S. politics). It drives a completely unnecessary wedge between people who would otherwise band together in an apolitical group.

For example, I run groups here related to my high school classmates, and to my children's PTA unit. The members of those groups undoubtedly hold a wide mix of political views. If some fraction of my group members feel uncomfortable using this service for reasons that have nothing to do with the agenda and content of my group then I have a problem running that group. In the case of the PTA group it is conceivable that PTA bylaws could be cited to prohibit me from running the unit's email list here.

Shal


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:45 PM, Barry_M wrote:
Even cat people like labs.
I can vouch for that! image.png
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 07:47 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Shal

I didn't find anything paradoxical or zenish about your statements
There's nothing negative about koans. They lead to enlightenment :)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:29 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
I didn't intend to post this request in an inappropriate board.
It's not that you posted it in an inappropriate place. It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. You were not suggesting a feature.

Furthermore, in the same breath as claiming you were "not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it. I don't care about your political opinions but I do think we should leave politics out of discussions on beta.

I don't consider myself a "power user" and am not sure what you meant by that.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

> Can we keep this a short discussion? If so, I think having it here would be fine (my initial gut reaction was not to have it here, but creating a subgroup feels ... heavy). My concern would be that I wouldn't want the discussion to devolve into a debate over politics, which it seems would be easy enough to do.
>
-------------------
 
Stepping back from the situation a little, I see a different perspective on this situation.
 
What if a wealthy individual or group approached Mark and said "I want to help support all the little humane societies out there who struggle to keep a few members informed and are loosely affiliated with a national group or a governmental entity, and I'd like to do it anonymously. I'd like to pick up the Premium costs for these groups myself, and I would be willing to make individual determinations of who qualifies."
 
Would that be wrong? Would that really be anyone's business except for groups.io management, the individual paying the tab, and the individual groups affected?
 
And if it were okay, what would be the best way to reach those people trying to create those small groups? Wouldn't it make sense to have a simple statement on the Pricing page to make those people aware that such a support was available.
 
What if those original groups dedicated to Freecycling had a benefactor who believed in such causes and wanted to support smaller independent groups to further the cause of non-profit recycling? Again, would it really be anyone else's business if they weren't directly affected? It seems that part of the the benefit is to those others who have free groups, which the Premium groups subsidize, even if they aren't aware of it.
 
Taking that one step further, what if another type of groups had such a benefactor and they were interested in something a little more political? Would that be wrong as well? Would that be anyone else's business either unless they were directly affected? And how else would you let those people know? 
 
All the statement in question says is that groups associated with a particular value or cause can request a subsidized upgrade by contacting support. It doesn't say who is actually paying the dime for it, and someone not directly involved might not have a need to know that would outweigh the donor's right to privacy. The statement appears in the most logical place where a person creating a new group would find it. Of course there would have to be some guidelines regarding what types of groups could be supported, but then groups.io already has guidelines on what types of groups are acceptable in the first place, so that's not much of a stretch.
 
I see this as an example where people made assumptions that politicized a situation that might not be as they imagined.
 
Dano


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:39 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Can we keep this a short discussion?
Thanks Mark. 

For the record:

1. I didn't intend to post this request in an inappropriate board.  I'm not a power user like J and others here, and I don't know elsewhere to post such a request.

2. I also didn't start a popularity poll -- merely a request to Mark for him and only him to consider. 

3. But on the other hand, I'm more than happy to discuss it with my reasoning.  That's "discuss" -- not simply counter "me too," "me three" knee-jerk replies -- they are meaningless, as Mark already heard what I already said that he already knew -- it's HIS baby.

4. No, no one hijacked a Y! group and dragged it to io by the hair.  But on the other hand, no one advertises that "Be aware that, if  you come to IO, the platform discriminates in favor of the (insert left/right/up/down -- anything you want to) political faction, rather than encouraging a full and open multi-political discussion."  Now, that would be complete disclosure and transparency.

5. The policy can cause difficulties for group owners. Yes, the knee-jerks will say, "Well it's my group (just like "it's Mark's baby"} so go pound....whatever." But that's just another typical knee-jerk reply w/o carefully considering the implications of the difficulty and position that any discriminatory policy could unwittingly place certain groups/owners into.  e.g., What if Indivisible joined io (maybe it has, I dunno?), and members discovered afterward that Mark discriminated in favor of MAGA supporters???  A horse of a different color, 'eh?  What hell could (or SHOULD) the group owner receive? 

6. It's just not a good thing, for everyone involved, to be associated with discriminatory policies, whether they are in favor of your camp or against your camp. 

7. I learned something as a kid (60 years ago) that "Just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea." The corollary to "Just because it's not illegal, doesn't necessarily. make it a good idea to do."

-k


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

Mark -
This isn't completely clear if it happened before the transfer to groups.io or not, and that could be very germane to the decision. If this happened before transfer to groups.io, it would seem to be moot because Mr Y would be the new group creator. If this is something that happened after the creation of the groups.io group, I would say that Mr X might have a legitimate beef.
 
One idea might be to poll the group members individually to solicit their candid and private input into the situation and give their comments to an independent judge or adjudication panel on the situation. Since it would seem that the members provide most of the content for the group, they would be closest to the day-to-day activity of the group, and might show a consensus of what would be best for the group.
 
As the owner of two groups that did change ownership, I can see some of the possible situations. I like the idea of a founder not being able to be eliminated or have their authorities removed without their voluntary action to do so or through some adjudication by groups.io. In essence creating a founder badge for one owner that couldn't be removed, only voluntarily surrendered or passed down upon the founder's leaving the group.
 
The larger group I took over was a voluntary transfer where the owner was going to delete the group if I didn't take it, and immediately after promoting me to owner, the original owner removed himself as an owner. At that point I would say he transferred the 'founder' badge to me. I added another group owner, in case something happened to me, but I would still retain the founder status.
 
The smaller group was a case of an owner disappearing for well over a year. As the only moderator ever appointed by the owner, I had to petition Y! for additional authority. Y! made me a moderator with all authorities except group deletion, but they never did eliminate the owner. I took over the 'Owner' title when I created the new group on groups.io, and transferred everything over. That Y! group owner is technically an inactive member of the new group, but we haven't seen anything from him for perhaps a decade. Yet he is still the owner of the Y! group.
 
Without knowing additional details it's hard to add anything that would work universally. And of course, every situation is going to have it's unique circumstances, which means the decision process needs to maintain a lot of flexibility.
 
I wish you much luck in this situation, Mark.
 
Dano
 
 

----- Original Message -----
 
4+ years in, and I've avoided anything like this so far, but I need help crafting a policy for the following scenario. It involves a Yahoo Group that was transferred. The Y!Group has been deleted, and I don't have the original transfer records anymore. This anonymized email lays things out:

I'm writing to inform you that I understand that Mr X was removed as list moderator by Mr Y.
Mr X was the original owner of the list, and now Mr Y has removed Mr X as a list member.
I was removed some months back for [REDACTED and not important]. I don't fully understand how Mr Y stole the list from Mr X, probably because Mr Y was assisting with moderating. I have known Mr X for nearly twenty years and I know him to be a fair and honest person.

I need a policy for how to handle a supposed group hijacking. Also, suggestions for features to make this more difficult in the future would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

KWKloeber
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:04 AM, Barry_M wrote:
that a group with one owner can't technically be hijacked unless that owner makes someone else a co-owner, who then becomes a hijacker 
If the facts are as they appear to be, then it seems the age-old problem of who you partnership with or get into bed with.  Partnerships are designed to fail. 
I (think) I'd lean towards a policy of not getting involved in off-io disputes or even on-io disputes that occur due to owners' actions.  We have to (learn to) take responsibility -- you could soften or "adjust" that policy if there is an overriding reason or circumstances.


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Glenn Glazer
 

Is it not the case that Mr. X made Mr. Y an admin, either directly or via some chain of people that Mr. X made admins? If so, this strikes me as entirely Mr. X's problem for trusting people that he shouldn't.

There's no programmatic solution to this, it is a root of trust and people problem.

Best,

Glenn

On 5/20/2019 21:51, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi All,

4+ years in, and I've avoided anything like this so far, but I need help crafting a policy for the following scenario. It involves a Yahoo Group that was transferred. The Y!Group has been deleted, and I don't have the original transfer records anymore. This anonymized email lays things out:

I'm writing to inform you that I understand that Mr X was removed as list moderator by Mr Y.
Mr X was the original owner of the list, and now Mr Y has removed Mr X as a list member.
I was removed some months back for [REDACTED and not important]. I don't fully understand how Mr Y stole the list from Mr X, probably because Mr Y was assisting with moderating. I have known Mr X for nearly twenty years and I know him to be a fair and honest person.

I need a policy for how to handle a supposed group hijacking. Also, suggestions for features to make this more difficult in the future would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark 


--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.



Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Barry_M
 

I need to better edit post since they can't be edited after replying.  In #1,  maybe obvious but that should be "pre-existing" and not "re-existing."


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

KWKloeber
 

Mark

R U saying that he's claiming that the hijack took place @ Y!, or after transfer? 
At first read, it sounds like it may be one of those (1) "not my problem things" or (2) take it one at a time, depending on the individual's circumstance and how you feel about to the claims being made (seems honest, seems questionable, seems "doubt it," etc.)  There's a lot of seems honest, but are made up, other side of the story, wool over the eyes, stories out there that are for one reason or 'nother, well, just plain ole BS.

7381 - 7400 of 28389