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