Should Go Vocal implement strict moderation policies to prevent harmful speech, even if it limits freedom of expression within the platform?

As a group, we recommend

We believe that moderation is necessary to maintain a constructive and safe environment on Go Vocal. While we value freedom of expression, we recognize that it should not come at the expense of causing harm to others or impeding valuable engagement with government. We recommend implementing a multi-layered moderation system that is transparent, customizable, and allows for community involvement alongside admin control. This system should range from removing clear violations like profanity to flagging potentially harmful content for review, and adding context to potential misinformation rather than censoring it outright. To prevent abuse and maintain accountability, moderated content should remain accessible for auditing purposes. We suggest exploring tools to help identify harmful speech and gently nudge users towards more constructive discourse, supporting thoughtful responses even in heated discussions. Our ultimate goal is to foster thoughtful debate and bring out the best in civic discourse, balancing protection against harm with the preservation of diverse viewpoints.

Before

What's your opinion?

👤 Participant 1

Strong yes

Yes but it should be implemented carefully to prevent abuse by platform administrators. The input that is stripped away from public view should still be accessible and auditable should the need arise

👤 Participant 2

Yes

We want to be a platform for constructive discourse leading to action and valuable engagement with government, which requires active moderation. Freedom of expression goes only as far as it does not harm to others.

👤 Participant 3

I think instead of strict moderation policies, this should be more easily controlled on the admin side so that they can remove harmful language and customize their own community guidelines

👤 Participant 4

Yes

Harmful speech does not contribute in any way to a constructive dialogue. Even if things get fired up (which is obviously a big possibility), people should still compose. I think it would be helpful for our tool to help identify harmful/disinformation text.

👤 Participant 5

Yes

The paradox of freedom: you need to limit freedom to maintain freedom. We need to prevent things that will limit freedom in the future.

During

Which statement do you prefer as the final group opinion?

After

During this exercise, did your opinion on the question change?

Explain

👤 Participant 2

Others helped me add nuance to my opinion, not change it

👤 Participant 3

I did not previously think about misinformation vs. harmful language

👤 Participant 4

I can find myself in the statement. Especially the fact that admins should not only get power.

👤 Participant 5

I have no idea. Too much text to fully grasp and understand so I ended up clicking.

After this exercise, which opinion aligns best with your current opinion?

Do you feel that your opinion had an influence on the final statement?

Other thoughts?

👤 Participant 2

I was pretty detailed on my responses and gave much inputs, so I experience that the final statement incorporated much of my opinion, just because I was more elaborate than others. Something to consider.