My approach to the situation would be to add a note to the user’s account with Discourse User Notes to give other mods on the site a warning about the user and make sure they are quickly banned for any new infractions. I’ve never come across a situation where the user didn’t eventually go away.
That’s been my experience too, that transparent moderation helps people understand the rules and to decide whether they want to follow them or converse elsewhere. The study I cited regarding mod workload also bears this out.
I think we should be doing our bit to try and make the world a better place. The type of issue I’m describing here is dealing with users who seem (from my point of view) to be dealing with mental health issues. I’d like to know how to help them be better citizens of both the internet and the real world.
It sounds like you’re coming from a good place, Simon! I think the individual who “just won’t go away” after being asked to leave is very rare, but if it does come up I’d say they deserve the same respect we give everyone else in regards to a “right to a trial” of sorts. A full-on trial is not going to happen for every online infraction, so the compromise I propose is that all users deserve to know when they’ve been moderated. Taking that away is like taking away the judiciary. Regarding mental health, even psychiatrists won’t make such assessments without personally examining the individual, so I don’t think we should be doing it either. “They’re crazy” will inevitably become the excuse for taking away the right to trial by using shadow moderation.
If the content is illegal, something that “in context, directly causes specific imminent serious harm”1 (a definition from Nadine Strossen), then that should be reported to authorities.
Finally, if you think self harm is a factor, then you could recommend a crisis hotline. Theoretically speaking, it’s possible that shadow removing comments from users advocating violence towards themselves or others may make them more likely to act on their wrong-headed beliefs.
Consider a group that you consider to be hateful. They might still remove calls for actual violence. But if mods do this secretly, the violent individual is not given any signal that their views were not in accord with the community. Who can say whether that makes them more or less likely to act? They may perceive the lack of a counter response as tacit approval.
My argument is the same as Justice Brandeis’, that sunlight is the best disinfectant1 and that a solution requires involving the community. Rather than shadow removing comments, even hateful ones, you can give them a signal about removals. That signal becomes a chance for them to benefit from some other interaction, be it one from your community, another community, or law enforcement. In doing so, you may provide the fringes of society a chance to feel less isolated, thereby making yourself and the world a safer place.
In general, I try to follow Jonathan Rauch’s advice. He says,
“The person you’re talking to isn’t the person you’re directly talking to…”
Basically, you don’t need to convince everyone you’re right. It’s enough to sound reasonable in the face of someone else who’s being dogmatic or even censorious. While it’s true that someone can legally behave censoriously in conversation by attempting to shout you down with hateful words, they also look like an idiot provided you give them the proper latitude. Any perception that this doesn’t work online may very well be because of widespread use of shadow removals. When you attempt to engage a “hateful” group in their own space, you may be shadow moderated without your knowledge!
In the same talk, Rauch says, “Haters, in the end, bury themselves if you let them talk.” And, he would know what works. As a gay man who grew up in the 60s, described here1, Rauch has apparently been active in the gay rights movement for decades with arguably a good deal of success. So he’s worth listening to on the subject of free speech, no matter your feelings about homosexuality or gay marriage. From the Spanish Inquisition, to Anthony Comstock, to Communism and McCarthyism, to the PMRC from Tipper Gore, the current social media era isn’t the first time free speech has been challenged, and it won’t be the last.
I’ve found Rauch’s mindset to be extremely effective in moderating my own engagement and letting others speak their mind while still getting my point across. I continually discover new ways to accept that (a) I can only change myself, and (b) that this is enough to have a positive impact in the world.