LinkedIn Post

Media

Type

Select

Assign

Status

In Progress

Link to Post

Deadline

Publication Date

May 16, 2025

Brief

Research

User Research

#iamhere

Notes

Every week

Identity-based Targeting

Message to posters:
"Your message contains language that targets individuals based on their identity. Our community values respectful dialogue that focuses on ideas rather than personal characteristics. Please revise your approach to contribute constructively."

Data collection:

Track patterns of identity-based attacks (frequency, targeting patterns, language used)

Monitor if certain events or topics trigger increases in identity-based targeting

Compare prevalence across different community spaces/channels

Community health dashboard:

Show reduction in identity-based attacks over time

Highlight constructive conversations that successfully navigated potentially divisive topics

Display demographic data on community participation to track if certain groups are being pushed out

Support for impacted individuals:

Provide private channels to report harassment

Offer connection to support networks specific to their identity group

Create opt-in visibility settings that filter content likely to contain identity-based attacks

Provide documentation support for reporting to relevant authorities if needed

Controversial Topics

Message to posters:
"This conversation is addressing an important but sensitive topic. We've detected language that may shut down productive dialogue. Our community thrives on exploring different perspectives respectfully. Consider how to express your view in a way that invites further conversation rather than ending it."

Data collection:

Identify which topics consistently generate toxic interactions

Track escalation patterns in conversations (what turns a discussion into a fight)

Monitor if introducing certain framing or context reduces toxicity around controversial topics

Community health dashboard:

Highlight successful discussions of controversial topics

Show topic-specific toxicity trends

Display "conversation health metrics" that measure engagement beyond simple engagement metrics

Support for impacted individuals:

Offer topic-specific guided discussions with community facilitators

Provide resources for constructively engaging with challenging topics

Create opt-in "deep discussion" spaces with enhanced moderation for exploring complex issues

Visibility (Public Figure Targeting)

Message to posters:
"Your message appears to target someone based on their public visibility rather than engaging with their ideas. Remember that public figures are also community members deserving of respectful dialogue. Please focus on the substance of their contribution."

Data collection:

Track volume and patterns of responses to highly visible members

Identify trigger points that lead to pile-ons

Monitor if toxic responses are coordinated or organic

Community health dashboard:

Show response quality metrics for interactions with visible members

Display distribution of attention across community (vs. concentration on a few members)

Highlight positive engagement patterns with public figures

Support for impacted individuals:

Provide filtering tools specifically designed for higher-volume accounts

Offer prioritized moderation for those experiencing higher volumes of negative interactions

Create systems for identifying constructive feedback among higher volumes of responses

Misaligned Stakeholder Interests

Message to posters:
"We've noticed this conversation reflects different perspectives on [project's] purpose and direction. While we encourage robust discussion about governance, personal attacks don't advance these important conversations. Consider framing your concerns in terms of shared outcomes while acknowledging different stakeholder priorities."

Data collection:

Track language patterns that indicate governance/value conflicts

Identify recurring points of tension between stakeholder groups

Monitor if reconciliation efforts are successful over time

Community health dashboard:

Display stakeholder alignment metrics on core values

Show governance participation across different stakeholder groups

Highlight successful collaborations between previously misaligned stakeholders

Support for impacted individuals:

Create dedicated spaces for stakeholder dialogue with enhanced facilitation

Offer governance education resources to help bridge understanding gaps

Provide conflict resolution protocols specific to value alignment challenges

Create transparent processes for surfacing and addressing systemic issues

Cross-cutting Implementation Considerations

Graduated response system: For all scenarios, implement escalating responses based on pattern recognition rather than treating each instance in isolation.

Contextual awareness: Train the system to distinguish between genuine discussion of difficult topics and weaponised "just asking questions" behaviour.

Peer mentoring: Connect those who navigate challenging conversations successfully with those struggling to do so.

Community governance: Allow community input on how each type of toxic behavior should be handled, acknowledging that different types of toxicity require different approaches.

Transparency reports: Regularly share aggregated, anonymized data on how different types of toxicity are trending in the community and what interventions have been most effective.

By tailoring moderation strategies to the specific type of toxicity encountered, WeLivedIt.AI can provide more effective interventions that address root causes rather than just symptoms, while collecting valuable data to improve community health over time.

Counterspeech Considerations Across Scenarios

Yes, several of these scenarios could benefit from counterspeech as part of a comprehensive moderation approach. Counterspeech—defined as direct responses to harmful speech that aim to undermine it through education, humor, or alternative narratives—can be particularly effective when implemented thoughtfully.

Identity-based Targeting

Warrants counterspeech: Yes, strongly recommended

Why it's effective here:

Provides immediate support to targeted individuals who otherwise feel isolated

Demonstrates community norms in action rather than just stating them

Creates learning opportunities for observers who may not recognize harmful patterns

Effective implementation:

Community moderators can model factual corrections to stereotypes or generalizations

Statements that shift focus from identity to substance: "Let's focus on their argument rather than who they are"

Educational responses that briefly explain why certain terms or framings are problematic

Showing solidarity: "We value diverse perspectives here, including those from [targeted group]"

Risks to manage:

Avoid escalating into argument that draws more attention to the original harmful content

Ensure targeted individuals aren't expected to provide the educational labor

Prevent pile-ons that might discourage genuine learning

Controversial Topics

Warrants counterspeech: Yes, with careful implementation

Why it's effective here:

Helps reframe discussions that are veering toward unproductive territory

Models how to engage with complex topics respectfully

Prevents toxic patterns from dominating important conversations

Effective implementation:

Introducing nuance: "This issue has multiple dimensions we should consider..."

Deescalation through recognition: "I understand you feel strongly about this because..."

Broadening perspectives: "Another way to look at this might be..."

Redirecting to evidence: "The research actually suggests that..."

Risks to manage:

Avoid creating perception of "official" community positions on divisive issues

Ensure counterspeech doesn't silence legitimate critique or minority perspectives

Prevent counterspeech itself from becoming a form of pile-on

Visibility (Public Figure Targeting)

Warrants counterspeech: Sometimes, depends on context

Why it's sometimes effective:

Can disrupt mob mentality during pile-ons

Demonstrates that community members are expected to uphold standards even with public figures

Provides alternative modes of critique that focus on substance rather than personal attacks

When to implement:

When attacks target immutable characteristics rather than actions or positions

When criticism crosses from substantive to dehumanizing

When pile-ons begin forming with repetitive negative content

When to avoid:

When legitimate criticism is being raised, even if strongly worded

When the public figure has institutional power within the community

When the "public figure" initiated a problematic interaction

Misaligned Stakeholder Interests

Warrants counterspeech: Yes, but with strategic focus

Why it's effective here:

Helps bridge understanding gaps between stakeholder groups

Models productive engagement across difference

Prevents entrenched camps from forming

Effective implementation:

Highlighting shared goals: "Despite different approaches, both perspectives value..."

Translating across stakeholder groups: "What I hear them saying is..."

Contextualizing conflicts: "This tension is natural in developing projects because..."

Elevating process: "We have governance mechanisms designed to resolve exactly these kinds of differences"

Risks to manage:

Avoid appearing to favor one stakeholder group over another

Ensure counterspeech doesn't oversimplify legitimate tensions

Prevent reinforcing us-vs-them dynamics

Implementation Considerations for Counterspeech

Who delivers it matters:

Community peers often more effective than official moderators

Respected community members from similar backgrounds as the speaker can be particularly effective

System could prompt trusted community members to consider responding

Timing is crucial:

Early intervention prevents normalization

Rapid response before conversation patterns solidify

Proportional to the potential harm

Technology support:

AI could suggest constructive counterspeech framings to moderators or community members

System could identify potential counterspeech allies based on past positive interactions

Platform could provide templated responses for common scenarios

Measurement:

Track the effectiveness of different counterspeech approaches

Monitor if counterspeech reduces recidivism better than content removal

Assess community perception of counterspeech vs. traditional moderation

Training and resources:

Provide guidelines for effective counterspeech

Create easily accessible educational resources on common issues

Recognize and incentivize community members who consistently provide constructive counterspeech

Counterspeech represents a valuable complement to other moderation approaches, particularly for creating a self-sustaining community culture. Its effectiveness varies by scenario and implementation, but when done well, it enables communities to naturally reinforce their values rather than relying solely on top-down enforcement.

Draft

LinkedIn Post

Media

Type

Select

Assign

Status

In Progress

Link to Post

Deadline

Publication Date

May 16, 2025

Brief

Research

User Research

#iamhere

Notes

Every week

Identity-based Targeting

Message to posters:
"Your message contains language that targets individuals based on their identity. Our community values respectful dialogue that focuses on ideas rather than personal characteristics. Please revise your approach to contribute constructively."

Data collection:

Track patterns of identity-based attacks (frequency, targeting patterns, language used)

Monitor if certain events or topics trigger increases in identity-based targeting

Compare prevalence across different community spaces/channels

Community health dashboard:

Show reduction in identity-based attacks over time

Highlight constructive conversations that successfully navigated potentially divisive topics

Display demographic data on community participation to track if certain groups are being pushed out

Support for impacted individuals:

Provide private channels to report harassment

Offer connection to support networks specific to their identity group

Create opt-in visibility settings that filter content likely to contain identity-based attacks

Provide documentation support for reporting to relevant authorities if needed

Controversial Topics

Message to posters:
"This conversation is addressing an important but sensitive topic. We've detected language that may shut down productive dialogue. Our community thrives on exploring different perspectives respectfully. Consider how to express your view in a way that invites further conversation rather than ending it."

Data collection:

Identify which topics consistently generate toxic interactions

Track escalation patterns in conversations (what turns a discussion into a fight)

Monitor if introducing certain framing or context reduces toxicity around controversial topics

Community health dashboard:

Highlight successful discussions of controversial topics

Show topic-specific toxicity trends

Display "conversation health metrics" that measure engagement beyond simple engagement metrics

Support for impacted individuals:

Offer topic-specific guided discussions with community facilitators

Provide resources for constructively engaging with challenging topics

Create opt-in "deep discussion" spaces with enhanced moderation for exploring complex issues

Visibility (Public Figure Targeting)

Message to posters:
"Your message appears to target someone based on their public visibility rather than engaging with their ideas. Remember that public figures are also community members deserving of respectful dialogue. Please focus on the substance of their contribution."

Data collection:

Track volume and patterns of responses to highly visible members

Identify trigger points that lead to pile-ons

Monitor if toxic responses are coordinated or organic

Community health dashboard:

Show response quality metrics for interactions with visible members

Display distribution of attention across community (vs. concentration on a few members)

Highlight positive engagement patterns with public figures

Support for impacted individuals:

Provide filtering tools specifically designed for higher-volume accounts

Offer prioritized moderation for those experiencing higher volumes of negative interactions

Create systems for identifying constructive feedback among higher volumes of responses

Misaligned Stakeholder Interests

Message to posters:
"We've noticed this conversation reflects different perspectives on [project's] purpose and direction. While we encourage robust discussion about governance, personal attacks don't advance these important conversations. Consider framing your concerns in terms of shared outcomes while acknowledging different stakeholder priorities."

Data collection:

Track language patterns that indicate governance/value conflicts

Identify recurring points of tension between stakeholder groups

Monitor if reconciliation efforts are successful over time

Community health dashboard:

Display stakeholder alignment metrics on core values

Show governance participation across different stakeholder groups

Highlight successful collaborations between previously misaligned stakeholders

Support for impacted individuals:

Create dedicated spaces for stakeholder dialogue with enhanced facilitation

Offer governance education resources to help bridge understanding gaps

Provide conflict resolution protocols specific to value alignment challenges

Create transparent processes for surfacing and addressing systemic issues

Cross-cutting Implementation Considerations

Graduated response system: For all scenarios, implement escalating responses based on pattern recognition rather than treating each instance in isolation.

Contextual awareness: Train the system to distinguish between genuine discussion of difficult topics and weaponised "just asking questions" behaviour.

Peer mentoring: Connect those who navigate challenging conversations successfully with those struggling to do so.

Community governance: Allow community input on how each type of toxic behavior should be handled, acknowledging that different types of toxicity require different approaches.

Transparency reports: Regularly share aggregated, anonymized data on how different types of toxicity are trending in the community and what interventions have been most effective.

By tailoring moderation strategies to the specific type of toxicity encountered, WeLivedIt.AI can provide more effective interventions that address root causes rather than just symptoms, while collecting valuable data to improve community health over time.

Counterspeech Considerations Across Scenarios

Yes, several of these scenarios could benefit from counterspeech as part of a comprehensive moderation approach. Counterspeech—defined as direct responses to harmful speech that aim to undermine it through education, humor, or alternative narratives—can be particularly effective when implemented thoughtfully.

Identity-based Targeting

Warrants counterspeech: Yes, strongly recommended

Why it's effective here:

Provides immediate support to targeted individuals who otherwise feel isolated

Demonstrates community norms in action rather than just stating them

Creates learning opportunities for observers who may not recognize harmful patterns

Effective implementation:

Community moderators can model factual corrections to stereotypes or generalizations

Statements that shift focus from identity to substance: "Let's focus on their argument rather than who they are"

Educational responses that briefly explain why certain terms or framings are problematic

Showing solidarity: "We value diverse perspectives here, including those from [targeted group]"

Risks to manage:

Avoid escalating into argument that draws more attention to the original harmful content

Ensure targeted individuals aren't expected to provide the educational labor

Prevent pile-ons that might discourage genuine learning

Controversial Topics

Warrants counterspeech: Yes, with careful implementation

Why it's effective here:

Helps reframe discussions that are veering toward unproductive territory

Models how to engage with complex topics respectfully

Prevents toxic patterns from dominating important conversations

Effective implementation:

Introducing nuance: "This issue has multiple dimensions we should consider..."

Deescalation through recognition: "I understand you feel strongly about this because..."

Broadening perspectives: "Another way to look at this might be..."

Redirecting to evidence: "The research actually suggests that..."

Risks to manage:

Avoid creating perception of "official" community positions on divisive issues

Ensure counterspeech doesn't silence legitimate critique or minority perspectives

Prevent counterspeech itself from becoming a form of pile-on

Visibility (Public Figure Targeting)

Warrants counterspeech: Sometimes, depends on context

Why it's sometimes effective:

Can disrupt mob mentality during pile-ons

Demonstrates that community members are expected to uphold standards even with public figures

Provides alternative modes of critique that focus on substance rather than personal attacks

When to implement:

When attacks target immutable characteristics rather than actions or positions

When criticism crosses from substantive to dehumanizing

When pile-ons begin forming with repetitive negative content

When to avoid:

When legitimate criticism is being raised, even if strongly worded

When the public figure has institutional power within the community

When the "public figure" initiated a problematic interaction

Misaligned Stakeholder Interests

Warrants counterspeech: Yes, but with strategic focus

Why it's effective here:

Helps bridge understanding gaps between stakeholder groups

Models productive engagement across difference

Prevents entrenched camps from forming

Effective implementation:

Highlighting shared goals: "Despite different approaches, both perspectives value..."

Translating across stakeholder groups: "What I hear them saying is..."

Contextualizing conflicts: "This tension is natural in developing projects because..."

Elevating process: "We have governance mechanisms designed to resolve exactly these kinds of differences"

Risks to manage:

Avoid appearing to favor one stakeholder group over another

Ensure counterspeech doesn't oversimplify legitimate tensions

Prevent reinforcing us-vs-them dynamics

Implementation Considerations for Counterspeech

Who delivers it matters:

Community peers often more effective than official moderators

Respected community members from similar backgrounds as the speaker can be particularly effective

System could prompt trusted community members to consider responding

Timing is crucial:

Early intervention prevents normalization

Rapid response before conversation patterns solidify

Proportional to the potential harm

Technology support:

AI could suggest constructive counterspeech framings to moderators or community members

System could identify potential counterspeech allies based on past positive interactions

Platform could provide templated responses for common scenarios

Measurement:

Track the effectiveness of different counterspeech approaches

Monitor if counterspeech reduces recidivism better than content removal

Assess community perception of counterspeech vs. traditional moderation

Training and resources:

Provide guidelines for effective counterspeech

Create easily accessible educational resources on common issues

Recognize and incentivize community members who consistently provide constructive counterspeech

Counterspeech represents a valuable complement to other moderation approaches, particularly for creating a self-sustaining community culture. Its effectiveness varies by scenario and implementation, but when done well, it enables communities to naturally reinforce their values rather than relying solely on top-down enforcement.

Draft