In recent years, online communities such as Bilibili, Zhihu, and Mihoyo have introduced the system of jury or similar community systems. The general idea of the system is to allow some long-term, rule-abiding, and assessed netizens, known as jurors, to judge reported cases involving unfriendly comments and then vote on whether they violate the rules.
The jury system can improve the accuracy of community judgments on rule violations to a certain extent, but due to the lack of training and varying qualities of jurors, as well as the complexity of specific cases, some decisions made by the jury are unfair.
I will share some thoughts based on my participation in this system since elementary school.
- The judgment of jurors should be appropriately biased towards the right. We should be brave enough to speak on the internet, express our different opinions with evidence, but being biased towards the right does not mean tolerating unfriendly comments. We should vote "violation" for those who attack others or maliciously speculate about others' intentions.
- The judgment of jurors should consider the context. Not everyone can remain calm when verbally attacked, not everyone can calmly report such situations. We should leave some room for "private retaliation," but leaving room does not mean tolerating aggressive behavior, emotional garbage should not be dumped at will.
- Platforms should improve the training and assessment of jurors, enhance their judgment quality, and provide conditions for them to explain their reasoning. Through education and promotion, encourage netizens to focus on the facts, not the person, and clarify their opinions with reasons. Strictly supervise cases of jury violations, establish reporting channels, and rectify "wrongful cases."
Although the jury system may be constrained by the nature of voting groups, I believe that with the joint efforts of all parties, this system will continue to improve.