thephilosophyforum.com is the upper middle brow version of Youtube comments, mostly. It reflects cultural and philosophical issues more than it generates them. It tracks cultural issues much more closely than philosophical ones, as it's quite rare to have a discussion of contemporary academic philosophy. It sticks closer to older issues and major figures, you'll find many discussions of solipsism, scientific realism and horrifically bad interpretations of quantum mechanics much more than people discussing current scholarship on the issues.

We're the upper middle brow of internet disagreement also due to something of a social contract present on the site, enforced by the mods, which reprimands people treating it more like youtube comments and less like an exchange of letters and essays, though we have a lower standard of minimum quality or relevance than other academic interest forums. This is mostly due to philosophy itself being broad in content.

While which topics are treated and presented here, and how they are treated, tracks their representation in the internet attention economy outside of the forum quite well, the coupling of the power of content with the attention it generates and its propagation rate is diminished. This is a good thing, we all have a responsibility to the discourse here to make sure that it's not just a vector from crap to crap.

A consequence of this partial decoupling from the larger attention economy is that the forum looks somewhat like a 'free marketplace of ideas', and people will hold dear to the liberal trope that no expressions should be censored. To use the stereotypes, it can appear that we're sitting behind the screens like mini neckbearded Voltaires against the moderating cabal of cryptofascist cultural Marxists.

This makes moderating the site contentious at times, because it is actually pretty popular for an academic interest discussion forum and what makes it so is higher quality requirements and the mods' resisting the medium's natural tendency toward shitposting and meme-to-meme combat. So moderating policy also has to contain an element of attention economy management, this keeps things on topic and stops the forum being co-opted by special interest groups. Somewhat ironically, this is what makes it an island of free and reasoned expression amidst the sea of piss which is internet debate.

It sticks closer to older issues and major figures, you'll find many discussions of solipsism, scientific realism and horrifically bad interpretations of quantum mechanics much more than people discussing current scholarship on the issues. [...] This makes moderating the site contentious at times, because it is actually pretty popular for an academic interest discussion forum and what makes it so is higher quality requirements and the mods' resisting the medium's natural tendency toward shitposting and meme-to-meme combat. So moderating policy also has to contain an element of attention economy management, this keeps things on topic and stops the forum being co-opted by special interest groups. Somewhat ironically, this is what makes it an island of free and reasoned expression amidst the sea of piss which is internet debate. — fdrake

I wonder to what extent you think this reflects changes in the internet itself. Perhaps I have an excessively nostalgic memory of the past, but the old version of this site struck me as far more interested in sophisticated and complex discussions. Very vaguely (since I always lurked but never posted), I remember learning a lot from a Pitt grad student with a Bertrand Russell avatar and a Thai (?) Marxist at Ohio State who made a lot of insightful comments about politics. We have some of those here (Streetlight!), but it seems to me the quality of discussion is not what it was on the old site (e.g. politics discussions between members like Maw and Augustino are vaguely interesting but not hugely illuminating) and there is little to no interest in academic philosophy. (No one discussing even major contemporary figures like Brandom, Ranciere, Noe, let alone serious current scholarship in semantics or QT.)

I am still massively enjoying this site, but it strikes me that this shift says more about the changing dynamics of the internet than the members or organization of this site. Petty political squabbling, shitposting, memes, emojis, etc. just seem to have been integrating into the practices of online communication in a way that's profoundly cheapened the conversation over the last decade.

Perhaps I am wrong on this?

Perhaps I am wrong on this? — John Doe

No, you seem to be spot on. I think it's due to the structure of this forum, though. The other forum was more organized in terms of keeping discussions in the proper subforums. Here everything is packed into one page, and hence, you get various inputs and thoughts. I don't really think the moderating team made a huge influence; but, we did have a Ph.D. in philosophy as an admin on the previous website. The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students.

I remiss about the higher standards; but, what has been done cannot be undone. So, I make the best I can out of this forum.

We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. So, there was certainly an incentive to post higher quality posts also.

I wonder to what extent you think this reflects changes in the internet itself. Perhaps I have an excessively nostalgic memory of the past, but the old version of this site struck me as far more interested in sophisticated and complex discussions. Very vaguely (since I always lurked but never posted), I remember learning a lot from a Pitt grad student with a Bertrand Russell avatar and a Thai (?) Marxist at Ohio State who made a lot of insightful comments about politics. We have some of those here (Streetlight!), but it seems to me the quality of discussion is not what it was on the old site (e.g. politics discussions between members like Maw and Augustino are vaguely interesting but not hugely illuminating) and there is little to no interest in academic philosophy. (No one discussing even major contemporary figures like Brandom, Ranciere, Noe, let alone serious current scholarship in semantics or QT.) — John Doe

We lost a lot of members who were actively engaged in philosophy. I don't think that's all the forum's fault, it seems just as likely to me that they moved on in their lives. Either to philpapers or away from the study. I don't remember much discussion of contemporary philosophy on the old site, proportionally anyway.

Having been an admod on both sites, I don't see any evidence standards were higher on old PF. There was no golden age in my view. There may be some difference as there is over time regardless of site as posters come and go, but I think what you are noticing is largely the effect of the default front page where more active and faster moving discussions dominate, and those are often the Shoutbox or political, and it's worth looking at doing something about that (it's possible to change the default view to categories rather than recent posts, for example). But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens. My take anyway.

We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. — Posty McPostface

That is one area where the old site had an advantage albeit a limited one as it was rare to get much engagement from guests. I remember Searle for example refused to post more than one reply in any discussion. Still though, I'm glad you brought it up as it's a line worth pursuing.

Anyway, I've split this into a new discussion in the hope that you and others can make specific suggestions for improving the site's quality, particularly in terms of encouraging a higher level of philosophical engagement. Maybe we have been too laissez-faire in that respect.

But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens. — Baden

Certainly, I did not mean to imply either that this site tolerates more low quality posts or that the folks on the new site are less interesting, sophisticated, intelligent, etc. than before. I think that my feeling - subjective, idiosyncratic, anecdotal - is that the way each of us communicates on internet forums like this has become less sophisticated over time. There's something different about how a site like this functions as a quasi-public space in 2018 as opposed to 2010 and I'm as "guilty" of this as anyone else.

Of course, this may be my falling into a tired reactionary trope, but it feels as though the rise of a certain modality of the internet in the 2010s - related to the colonizing of spaces and practices we find in Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. -- has made us all slightly more glib and contentious than we were before.

(it's possible to change the default view to categories rather than recent posts, for example) — Baden

Could we run a trial of this feature if others agree to it? I would like to see how discussions evolve under that feature...

Tell you what, I'll stick a poll up later today. Final decision will be down to @jamalrob, but it will be worth gauging opinion. I am leaning towards thinking it's a good idea.

It'll be less work for you guys at the least, as it tends to promote self moderation by picking a subforum to post in and sticking to whether it's epistemological, metaphysical, ethics, or what have you.

Thanks. :ok:

it feels as though the rise of a certain modality of the internet in the 2010s - related to the colonizing of spaces and practices we find in Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. -- has made us all slightly more glib and contentious than we were before. — John Doe

You could be right and maybe it's something we all need to be aware of and push back against more.

I tend to agree. It's tempting to jump in without much forethought the way things are at the minute.

I tend to agree. It's tempting to jump in without much forethought the way things are at the minute. — Baden

I don't feel as though the site needs improvements in moderation. I didn't mean to imply that, so sorry if that came off that way. I just feel that we're approaching critical mass, where topics are pushed down the feed due to a sheet amount of posts being made at once. I also think a "newbie" subcategory or subforum would be pertinent if the plan gets realized as we have an abundance of newbie posts about philosophy, knowledge, belief, metaphysics. They tend to gets recycled by new members all the time in terms of making the same posts all the time.

On second thought, a newbie "subforum" would be associated with some negative connotation, so nobody would want to post there, so, bad idea I guess.

No worries. Appreciate all the good suggestions. Keep them coming.

I think you have both zeroed in on perhaps the biggest problem and are right to try and bring the issue wider awareness. My guess is that the current set-up is cleaner, nicer and more accessible but also corrosive of discourse.

Just as, for example, the previous system of upvotes/downvotes was fun but also cheapened discourse.

The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students. — Posty McPostface

Sorry to come around to this a little late, but was Timothy the Pitt grad student? I know a lot of people at Pitt and I've always wanted to find out who it was I learned a lot from but it's a weird question to go around asking people.

Also, I'm really disappointed to discover that Paul is not Bitter Crank, which I thought for whatever reason was the case. I'm actually a bit fuzzy on the transition to this site. What happened to Paul? Why the change?

We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. So, there was certainly an incentive to post higher quality posts also. — Posty McPostface

I remember those posts well. I suspect that nowadays it would be a lot harder to get philosophers to do an AMA on a place like this since they'd rather go to something large like "Partially Examined Life" or Reddit. That's IMO part of the corrosive, changing dynamics of the internet.

Maybe one thing you guys might think about is asking younger Tenure-Track or even Grad Students on the job market to consider coming on here to present their work. I think they might like the exposure and interest, which is always hard to come by. They're also less prone to be divas and more likely to engage than, well, certain prominent philosophers.

Sorry to come around to this a little late, but was Timothy the Pitt grad student? — John Doe

According to what you said about him having the Bertrand Russell avatar, and being a mod, then yes that seems to be him. There was also a guy named sheps, who was also pretty knowledgeable about philosophy, although I think he had a degree in law.

Paul is still here, although he checks in rather sporadically.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/50/paul

That's IMO part of the corrosive, changing dynamics of the internet. — John Doe

Yeah, the larger things get the messier they become. I don't know anything about the evolution of the internet, though. Interesting topic though...

Maybe one thing you guys might think about is asking younger Tenure-Track or even Grad Students on the job market to consider coming on here to present their work. I think they might like the exposure and interest, which is always hard to come by. They're also less prone to be divas and more likely to engage than, well, certain prominent philosophers. — John Doe

That sounds like an interesting idea. I wouldn't be able to contribute; but, it would definitely raise the quality or standard of posts due to the influx of professional philosophers.

Also, I'm really disappointed to discover that Paul is not Bitter Crank, which I thought for whatever reason was the case. I'm actually a bit fuzzy on the transition to this site. What happened to Paul? Why the change? — John Doe

That is fuzzy. :) Short version: Paul, after selling PF to someone called Porat, who turned out to be a shyster, stayed on the mod team of the old site until it went down. Those of us who didn't trust Porat left immediately and set this one up (luckily jamalrob had the know how). Paul never migrated over here though most of the other regulars, including mods, did.

Paul never migrated over here though most of the other regulars, including mods, did. — Baden

Isn't this Paul?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/50/paul

He registered and posted a couple of times, but he didn't migrate as in post regularly.

He registered and posted a couple of times, but he didn't migrate as in post regularly. — Baden

Yes, true. Anyway, I don't think anything productive can be said about the old PF. What happened happened, and unless I win the lotto, I can't buy out the old database and revive the old forum. So, I'm satisfied with what's happening here.

It's time for me to sleep, but I really do hope you implement the small change you talked about in terms of having categories define where posts get posted. Just as a matter of trial and error I suppose. The thing is that if it happens or works out, then there's no going back to this format, so yeah.

I think it's a good idea (and it can be changed any time actually). Just out at the moment, but will put a poll up later. Final decision will then be down to jamalrob.

Thanks, this helps give a lot of context to the old posts explaining what happened. I guess I never understood what happened because I could never wrap my mind around the idea: Who the hell buys a philosophy forum to turn a profit? And what good would it do to bully the members who in effect are the site?

From what I am reading it looks like Paul got paid handsomely and the site remained completely in tact (in this version) despite some drama, so I think everybody wins.

I can see why Paul would stop frequenting the site. The nasty nature of the destruction of the older site and change over to this one must have been hard on him but I am very glad that he appears to have received a duly deserved financial reward for all his work.

In any case, there's this very interesting post from Paul:

Maybe so according to the notion that more = better, but the most fun times I had at PF were in '02-'05. For me, the discussions were more fun precisely because there were few enough people that I could actually read a whole thread instead of having to skim 10 pages super-quick. And it was possible to get a good back and forth going with someone. Why bother to post if there are going to be too many replies to engage with? — Paul

I miss Paul. I hope he's doing well.

I wouldnt worry too much about the lack of academically oriented threads. It is the summer, after all. I would expect there to be a lull outside of the regular university semesters. I know that, for me, a lot of my posting here is motivated by discussion with a teacher.

Lacking a better mentor, Trump will have to teach us all until september.

Petty political squabbling, shitposting, memes, emojis, etc — John Doe

What is wrong with emojis? :cool:

I miss Paul. I hope he's doing well — Caldwell

Yes. And it wasn't his fault. Just picked the wrong guy to sell to.

I think part of the problem is that posts from the Lounge can dominate the front page, which is why I’ve changed my default front page to exclude them.

@Baden, is this something that can be done automatically for everyone? Maybe with any other “low quality” categories?

Actually, yes, now that I've had a poke around under the hood. I've just given it a test run. That may be a good solution to keeping the Shoutbox in particular more low profile. Thanks.