A well argued position. Two questions. Is your argument that adopting epistemic humility automatically leads to the establishment of standards of decorum, or are these in fact separate design decisions? Would epistemic humility require support for a range of different moderation techniques on the basis that you do not know which is actually best? Put another way, how do you reconcile the adoption of epistemic humility with the effective creation of a single moderation standard.
Great questions. I would think they are separate design decisions, and the standards would vary by community and platform. And epistemic humility would mean we should trial different moderation approaches to see what has the desired effects given we can't be sure (in advance) what works best, and effective approaches may change over time. Epistemic humility should give us something of a common goal for moderation (an inclusive place where anyone with genuinely held views can participate) but doesn't dictate the methods to get there.
I guess this raises a question about how we measure the performance of any system of moderation. Three tests spring to mind: (1) a tolerance test, which involves tracking whether the system meets base standards of humility and decorum and is agnostic as to outcome; (2) a correctness test, which involves tracking whether the town square is delivering a debate which is revealing truth or an increasingly well reasoned disagreement around uncertainties; (3) a harm test, which involve tracking the harm created by debate of the platform. The tests are not mutually exclusive and involve judgement. My instinct would be to assess all three in a 'reasonable person' framework. But this is said without thinking it through carefully.
Really interesting way of tackling it and I haven't thought it through either. I'm inclined to think a multi-faceted approach makes sense - and I imagine different platforms would weight things differently. I wouldn't go with 'correctness' as the name of the second test as that seems to presume we can easily decide what things are correct. Is it more something like 'constructiveness'? As in whether the debate is being constructive and revealing truth.
Also, it's been suggested to me that civility might be a better term than decorum - and I'm leaning towards it.
Civility hits the mark well for me. Thought correctness might be a problem for you. Not sure about constructiveness, although I kind of like it. The main things for me is to capture the 'contribution' the town square is making. This can be towards the finding of truth, or the helping to define the areas of uncertainty and conflict in a way that creates tolerance.
A well argued position. Two questions. Is your argument that adopting epistemic humility automatically leads to the establishment of standards of decorum, or are these in fact separate design decisions? Would epistemic humility require support for a range of different moderation techniques on the basis that you do not know which is actually best? Put another way, how do you reconcile the adoption of epistemic humility with the effective creation of a single moderation standard.
Great questions. I would think they are separate design decisions, and the standards would vary by community and platform. And epistemic humility would mean we should trial different moderation approaches to see what has the desired effects given we can't be sure (in advance) what works best, and effective approaches may change over time. Epistemic humility should give us something of a common goal for moderation (an inclusive place where anyone with genuinely held views can participate) but doesn't dictate the methods to get there.
I guess this raises a question about how we measure the performance of any system of moderation. Three tests spring to mind: (1) a tolerance test, which involves tracking whether the system meets base standards of humility and decorum and is agnostic as to outcome; (2) a correctness test, which involves tracking whether the town square is delivering a debate which is revealing truth or an increasingly well reasoned disagreement around uncertainties; (3) a harm test, which involve tracking the harm created by debate of the platform. The tests are not mutually exclusive and involve judgement. My instinct would be to assess all three in a 'reasonable person' framework. But this is said without thinking it through carefully.
Really interesting way of tackling it and I haven't thought it through either. I'm inclined to think a multi-faceted approach makes sense - and I imagine different platforms would weight things differently. I wouldn't go with 'correctness' as the name of the second test as that seems to presume we can easily decide what things are correct. Is it more something like 'constructiveness'? As in whether the debate is being constructive and revealing truth.
Also, it's been suggested to me that civility might be a better term than decorum - and I'm leaning towards it.
Civility hits the mark well for me. Thought correctness might be a problem for you. Not sure about constructiveness, although I kind of like it. The main things for me is to capture the 'contribution' the town square is making. This can be towards the finding of truth, or the helping to define the areas of uncertainty and conflict in a way that creates tolerance.