Communities should not be overly moderated in order to enforce a specific narrative. Respectful disagreement should be allowed in a smaller proportion to the established narrative.
Humans are naturally inclined to believe a single narrative when they’re only presented with a single narrative. That’s the basis of how fiction works. You can’t tell someone a story if they’re questioning every paragraph. However, a well placed sentence questioning that narrative gives the reader the option to chose. They’re no longer in a story being told by one author, and they’re free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.
Unfortunately, some malicious actors are hijacking this natural tendency to be invested in fiction, and they’re using it to create absurd, cult-like trends in non-fiction. They’re using this for various nefarious ends, to turn us against each other, to generate profit, and to affect politics both domestically and internationally.
In a fully anonymous social media platform, we can’t counter this fully. But we can prune some of the most egregious echo chambers.
We’re aware that this policy is going to be subjective. It won’t be popular in all instances. We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments. The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so. One sentence that doesn’t jive with the overall narrative should be easily countered or ignored.
It’s harder to just dismiss that comment if it’s interrupting your fictional story that’s pretending to be real. “The moon is upside down in Australia” does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than “Nobody has crossed the ice wall” does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.
A user should be able to (respectfully, infrequently) post/comment about a study showing marijuana is a gateway drug to !marijuana without moderation tools being used to censor that content.
Of course this isn’t about marijuana. There’s a small handful of self-selected moderators who are very transparently looking to push their particular narrative. And they don’t want to allow discussion. They want to function as propaganda and an incubator. Our goal is to allow a few pinholes of light into the Truman show they wish to create. When those users’ pinholes are systematically shut down, we as admins can directly fix the issue.
We don’t expect this policy to be perfect. Admins are not aware of everything that happens on our instances and don’t expect to be. This is a tool that allows us to trim the most extreme of our communities and guide them to something more reasonable. This policy is the board that we point to when we see something obscene on [email protected] so that we can actually do something about it without being too authoritarian ourselves. We want to enable our users to counter the absolute BS, and be able to step in when self-selected moderators silence those reasonable people.
Some communities will receive an immediate notice with a link to this new policy. The most egregious communities will comply, or their moderators will be removed from those communities.
Moderators, if someone is responding to many root comments in every thread, that’s not “in a smaller proportion” and you’re free to do what you like about that. If their “counter” narrative posts are making up half of the posts to your community, you’re free to address that. If they’re belligerent or rude, of course you know what to do. If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.
@[email protected] this post seems relevant as to what people are afraid of. I am glad that the admin team is taking time to reword this policy to make more clear what is meant:-).
Is this a piefed thing I’m too Lemmy to understand?
Hello,
Any idea when the new announcement will be made?
once it’s ready.
this post didn’t follow our usual process for announcements/changes and lately there have been several other events that required a lot of our attention as well.
we’d love to have posted an update on this topic a week ago already but we haven’t finished that within the team yet.
Thank you for your reply!
Here is the link to the post from Lemmy.World directly:-)
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say or why. I’m generally not clicking random youtube videos.
Innuendo Studios has several fantastic videos - I dare say just about the main thing I even highly care about on YouTube these days, even though there are so very few of them. The Alt Right Playbook in particular is a wonderful series. This latest one seems so very highly related to the subject matter of this post, where extremists bury reasonable people behind an avalanche of false statements, each one of which must be rebutted properly, despite how the statements themselves did not have such care and attention put into them.
Side-note: I love how PieFed and Tesseract both provide YouTube previews to help decide whether to click or not - speaking for myself it helps me decide!:-)
Anyway, I’m sure you know all about the subject matter, but the language used in this linked video (or just search for Alt-Right Playbook and choose the latest one) I thought might be particularly helpful to have watched in drafting the next response of this announcement. The flat earth bit especially is off-putting to people bc it conjures up the vaccine disinformation issue that genuinely cost people’s literal, actual lives. Though I didn’t take from the announcement that this has suddenly become a place where such dis/misinformation was “welcomed”, and yet people reacted as if that is what it was saying… so I hoped the video would help bridge that gap between what was intended to be conveyed vs. was managed to be received by some, who seem to just be so very scared and anxious about so many things beyond
theirour control these days.I’ll take a look. And yeah, the intention was the opposite, to poke pinholes into those crazy, reality-denying philosophies.
Great! Not an easy task indeed, though oh so necessary…:-)
We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments. The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so.
I get that those are examples, and I am pretty sure I understand the problem this is trying to address. Like, I get that.
But, aside from the aforementioned “many root comments in every thread”, where do we draw the line with regard to misinformation and/or trolling? Are we expected to refute every crackpot claim and leave misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the like on display? I feel like that’s just a recipe for gish-galloping mods to death while opening the door to mis-information.
What if, to use the recent example from Meta, someone comes into a LGBT+ community and says they think being gay is a mental illness and /or link some quack study? Is that an attack on a group or is it “respectful dissent”? According to common sense and the LW TOS Section 1, it’s the former. According to how this new policy is written, it seems to be the latter.
Again, I understand what this is trying to accomplish, but I feel the way it’s being handled is not the best way to achieve that.
If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.
This right here may be the key to the whole thing. If not, then it’s time to move communities to other instances bc ultimately the communities are merely rooms inside of someone else’s house.
That was what I assumed it boiled down to, yeah, and that’s where I agree with them. The rest of it, though, is indefensible and sounds exactly like what Meta just announced with their recent content moderation changes (read: it stinks).
A lot of attacks like that are common and worth refuting once in awhile anyway. It can be valuable to show the response on occasion. Additionally, you don’t always have to have the last word. When they end with something ridiculous enough, I often just leave it. The point is to help the reader see the options, but you can’t make them drink. If they look at the water fountain, then the toilet, and then they choose the toilet, well maybe they’re not able to be helped.
If they keep spamming, you have a legit reason to remove them.
The communities where we take action should have a very clear pattern. I don’t expect this to be perfect, but we’re open to suggestions.
Feel free to check my comment history in this community on prior announcements; you’ll see I’ve defended pretty much every site-wide action the LW Team has taken because I’ve seen the bigger picture, the merit to it, and/or understood where they were coming from.
I cannot defend this one, though.
If someone submits something counter to objective reality, mods should have every right to squash that as misinformation even if they’re not spamming it. Sure, we can’t make them drink an antidote, but we should not be stopped from preventing others from drinking the poison.
A lot of attacks like that are common and worth refuting once in awhile anyway. It can be valuable to show the response on occasion.
Are you referring to the example I used re: Meta and someone popping into an LGBT+ community to say that being gay is a mental illness? Because that just sounds like feeding the trolls to me. I definitely don’t want an echo chamber and welcome more varied opinions/positions, but my tolerance is zero when it comes to those operating in bad faith (a quick look at their submission history easily confirms/refutes that).
I sincerely hope your team revises this or applies it more granularly where the problem actually exists because I feel like this is just creating a whole new set of problems.
Yeah I agree with you.
What happens when someone respectfully dissents trans’ right to exist?
Debate like that should be shut down right quick.
counter to objective reality
At the current moment, there is zero consensus among the human race as to what objective reality actually is. This is a fundamental problem for us as a species, and Lemmy should be a space where it’s possible to seek answers to this question.
I think you may be overreacting to a policy that is, by definition, subjective and open to interpretation.
At the current moment, there is zero consensus among the human race as to what objective reality actually is.
Agreed, but why do you think that is? Could it be because for years other online platforms have allowed nonsense after nonsense to flourish, often boosted by the platform itself for engagement purposes?
I respectfully disagree that I am over-reacting (in fact, I’m deliberately under reacting).
Back to my example based off of Meta’s recent changes: Someone comes in saying gay people are just mentally all and should seek help: is that an attack on a group or “respectful dissent”? Going by the letter of this post, I really have no idea even though it’s clearly an attack on a group. I absolutely will not “debate” my existence to every troll with an internet connection - I simply will not. Even though I’m not a mod of a community (on LW) where that’s likely to happen, I do not want the mod’s hands tied in that regard.
There hasn’t ever been a consensus historically, tbh. But there was a hope that the internet could bridge that divide by connecting people and spreading information. Instead, it seems to have made things even worse. I had hoped that the corporate control over the web was to blame for this, but I’m not so sure anymore. Perhaps all online interaction is destined to exacerbate our differences. But I’m willing to keep trying until it’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I think that your example could fall under the umbrella of hate speech, and thus removal would be entirely justifiable. Even if it doesn’t qualify as hate speech, moderators still have the discretion to remove it for a variety of other reasons. The mods’ hands aren’t being tied here, it’s just providing a counterpoint to the tendency of mods to be overzealous and biased, which is common enough that multiple thriving communities are dedicated to exposing such behavior.
In general, I believe that the negative effects of overmoderation are more problematic for this platform than the negative effects of allowing idiots to get downvoted for saying dumb shit.
I had hoped that the corporate control over the web was to blame for this, but I’m not so sure anymore.
I can’t say with 100% certainty that it has or hasn’t, but I can tell you that at least in the BBS, IRC/AIM/ICQ, individual forum days, there were certainly crackpots, but we weren’t all mixed together on a common platform that insisted on giving them equal “airtime” or worse.
I think that your example could fall under the umbrella of hate speech, and thus removal would be entirely justifiable. Even if it doesn’t qualify as hate speech, moderators still have the discretion to remove it for a variety of other reasons.
From the post:
Moderators, if someone is responding to many root comments in every thread, that’s not “in a smaller proportion” and you’re free to do what you like about that. If their “counter” narrative posts are making up half of the posts to your community, you’re free to address that. If they’re belligerent or rude, of course you know what to do. If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.
From the way the post is worded, and it was announced officially, it sounds like as long as they’re being civil and not spamming, it’s fair game. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong, but nothing has yet been officially clarified.
Edit: LW has since edited/clarified that would be considered an attack on a group, but that just goes to show how poorly written and poorly thought out this policy is.
In general, I believe that the negative effects of overmoderation are more problematic for this platform than the negative effects of allowing idiots to get downvoted for saying dumb shit.
I’ve only seen a handful of communities that were truly over-moderated (read: badly moderated). If it’s just a handful, then maybe deal with them directly and/or let the Fediverse do its thing. Badly moderated communities (and instances) can, do, and will drive people away to alternatives.
Communities are created with rules and expectations for a reason: be it a goal, to maintain a vibe/safe space, or whatever it may be. Vote manipulation in Lemmy is also a thing that exists. I even posted about one campaign I dug up; those never went away, merely changed tactics. That is to say that depending on votes to set the record straight is an extremely flawed assumption when bad actors can manipulate it in such a way.
Fair enough, you make some good points, although I stand by what I said and I still think this is a good decision on aggregate. Depending on votes is unreliable, but no more unreliable than depending on volunteer mods, and with less of a potential for severe abuse, imo.
I also want to emphasize that I don’t think this decision will have a significant effect on the actual functioning of communities to the extent that you seem to believe, and it’s more about the principle than anything else.
Thank you for the discussion, it was illuminating.
If they look at the water fountain, then the toilet, and then they choose the toilet, well maybe they’re not able to be helped.
But sticking with this analogy, imagine you see someone hanging a sign saying “water fountain” over a toilet, and you’re told you have to leave it there because of “respectful dissent” and “if someone chooses the toilet, they’re not able to be helped.” Which makes more logical sense- telling every single passerby that despite the sign this toilet is in fact not a water fountain, or just taking the sign down and dealing with the few people who do question it?
Like, I get that heavy-handed opinionated overmoderation is a problem that should be addressed in some way. Forcing mods to blanket accept factual falsehoods isn’t the way to go about it.
To add to this, the toilet/water fountain example is almost simplistic as to be not worth engaging with. Almost childish. \ The fact of the matter is that everyone has some kind of foolish belief that they might not have taken the time to address. Maybe we don’t just toss people in the trash bin because they were duped, their education system has failed them, or they just are from a part of the world were toilets are not bowls full of water.
You underestimate the masses’ susceptibility to be gradually grifted into believing increasingly worse falsehoods, bigotries, and self-destructive ideals.
The masses don’t use Lemmy. If you’re using this platform, it’s somewhat expected for you to have a modicum of critical thinking skills. If that’s not the case, and you need to be protected from alternative viewpoints lest you fall under their spell, then you may as well just use reddit.
You shouldn’t assume that any demographic is categorically incorruptible from every form of ignorance or immorality. It is especially foolhardy to assume that oneself is categorically immune from these errors because one is of a particular demographic. It exudes big Redditor caricature energy to think that all on a particular site are necessarily smarter than those not on said site. You are of the masses, as is everybody.
You’ve used the term “alternative viewpoints” to whitewash objective falsehoods and bigoted malice. These can manifest actual material harm, and the normalization and tolerance for these notions being spread amplifies that harm.
People are not identical clones. Some people are smarter and think more independently, while most tend to accept the dominant narrative, because thinking for yourself is emotionally and mentally draining. I would bet my left nut that the average lemming is smarter than the average redditor.
If you follow your own advice, if you’re just part of the masses, then how can you possibly distinguish what is objectively false? You obviously believe yourself to be less susceptible to disinformation than others, because otherwise you would have no basis to be making claims about objective truths. Ultimately, it’s up to the more intelligent people to determine what is true and false, and the best way to do that is through open, uncensored debate.
More frequently than not, the artificial suppression of irrational ideas causes them to become more problematic, because those ideas don’t simply disappear when they are removed from a given forum. Instead, they are pushed to the fringes where there isn’t anyone with the capacity to demonstrate that they are wrong, where they continue to incubate and become more extreme. They actually derive increased potency from the fact that they are being censored, because a significant portion of people take that as evidence that there must be some truth to them.
Ultimately, it’s up to the more intelligent people to determine what is true and false, and the best way to do that is through open, uncensored debate.
So people have to debunk flat-earthers theories everytime they show up? Seems unrealistic
If it’s off topic, it can be removed. If it’s disruptive towards discussion, it can be removed. Let’s not set up straw men before seeing how the policy plays out.
Cool, totally looking forward to having to “debate” people that my identity isn’t mental illness. Sure am happy I get to dust off my refutation of that “occasionally”. You can say what you want, as long as you word it right. Just be inquisitive! I can see the “toilets” now: “Oh gee whiz mister, I sure do not understand why you think you’re a lady. I heard it was a mental illness. Can you explain it to me? I pwomise to respect you and leave my anecdotes out.”
EDIT: There’s someone replying to this from lemm.ee whose replies I cannot see because my instance banned them for transphobia. To that person: I’m pretty much referencing you.
I generally approach comments like that in a different way… I’m not arguing with the person posting, they’re already a lost cause, all I can do is present logic and evidence for anyone else who stumbles across the thread in the future.
There’s more at stake than just arguing with someone who is clearly wrong, it’s making sure posterity understands that they’re clearly wrong and we understand they’re clearly wrong.
See:
It’s more that this change might allow that to stay or be non-reportable depending on the mod. It lends that form of content the air of legitimacy, even if refuted. They would likely cite this rule change if asked to stop. And it’s just exhausting to have to see that. Maybe, in an ideal implementation, this won’t cover that kind of lead and this form of harassment disguised as ignorance will still be removed. I’m just not that hopeful…
I am only speaking for myself and not other mods and if this gets me de-modded, so be it, but I would consider telling someone that being trans is a mental illness to be a violation of the “attacks on people or groups” section of the ToS. I will absolutely not stand for bigoted attacks in communities I moderate and I will stand by that until I am demodded.
I appreciate that. This rule change in the face of what Meta is doing on Facebook has me wildly on edge.
I totally understand and sympathize. I have zero tolerance for bigotry.
Thinking you have the right to free speach and expression while symultaniously expecting the right to silence anyone else exercising those very same rights.
I would classify that as hypocritical and if someone where to genuinely believe it i would call that mental illness.
If this idea is part of your identity then its your right to excercise your free expression and refute it. Just as much as its my right to say it in the first place.
Thinking you have the right to free speach and expression while symultaniously expecting the right to silence anyone else exercising those very same rights.
I would classify that as hypocritical
The saying “my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins” would apply here.
There’s nothing hypocritical about being for free speech that doesn’t harm anyone while simultaneously being against harmful disinformation and othering of vulnerable groups of people.
Much less when you yourself belong to one of those groups and are being attacked and othered.
if someone where to genuinely believe it i would call that mental illness.
Just couldn’t help yourself, could you? You just HAD to use the trope of the bigots yourself. You can fuck right off with that hateful shit.
Fuck man, I may as well get back on reddit. If you’re open to suggestions, I suggest, perhaps, meditating on where the value of lemmy actually lies.
Its the fediverse u can go fuck off to lemmy.ml if u want. Nobody is making u stay.
Oh, I am not being made to stay!? Do you mean it? Such insight!
A zero tolerance policy against zero tolerance policies against intolerance and mis/dis/malinformation? The explanation was a bit figurative language heavy.
This policy to me seems as an attempt to sensibly resolve the power trip problem, but it appears a bit vague and there is still room for improvement. There are some communities where this makes sense but I think there are others where it does not. Moderators are volunteers and I think they should have a degree of discretion how they run the community. You’re the admin so do as you will, but may I suggest:
Where a one sided narrative is strictly being enforced that world admins don’t appreciate, would it be better to just move/rename that community to better reflect it? Such as moving the example community mod to a new community called “marijuana is bad”, to better reflect the variety of views the moderator is looking for? I know a pervasive issue is a single poster/moderator just posts and enforces a one-sided view, but perhaps the root of that issue is that the community’s name misleadingly looks to be a neutral place when it is not being run that way.
I say this because there are places that are not intended for neutral discussion and are meant to be more supportive of one group.
LGBTQ+ safe spaces are a prime example, but a different example about more trivial matters would be, say, Premier League football clubs.
If someone makes a Chelsea fan community, someone else coming in to say why Liverpool is better can be removed, as it should be more of a Chelsea echo chamber. Whereas in a Premier League community, blocking Liverpool posts and only allow Chelsea supportive posts would make sense to get admins involved to have it be more open and neutral.
Personally I think it would be better to enforce a policy of ensuring a community’s moderation matches the intent implied by the name of it. The policy as it stands feels heavy-handed on moderators.
[email protected] is about to get heated.
I couldn’t care less about flat earthers. It’s the lack of moderation of hate speech that prompted me to leave Meta products. When the speech is specifically designed to harm others it’s a huge difference from just harming themselves and their willing peers. Allowing spreading that LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill or that Autistic people need to be fixed rather than accepted, or that all immigrants are bad people, those things are not just bad science (though that’s part of it). They are designed to have those people ostracized or murdered. That is not “respectful disagreement”. That is pure hate-speech, even if the person saying it truly believes it. It is detrimental to the community and if that is allowed here like on Meta now, I’ll happily leave as a proud LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent person among other things that current “political discourse” (i.e. acceptable hate) is being allowed to spread.
Our original ToS hasn’t gone anywhere and will still be enforced. Hate speech is not respectful. None of this means discrimination or hate speech is okay.
- Attacks on people or groups
Before using the website, remember you will be interacting with actual, real people and communities. Lemmy.World is not a place for you to attack other people or groups of people. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t give you the right to harass them. Discuss ideas and be critical of principles. Show the respect you desire to receive.
The problem other than the fact that the timing is suspect as other social media is moving as quickly as possible to allow hate speech under the guise of free speech, is that the language uses seems to imply that moderators must cater to moderating only things that are hateful or attacks by all users. Problem is that many on the far right don’t consider the things I mentioned or most other hate speech to be disrespectful. They don’t consider those people to be worthy of respect or human at all. They are “followers of the devil” or whatever excuse they have told themselves to justify their hate.
So saying that hate speech is not respectful only works if all parties consider it hate speech. But all of these things are now excluded from what Meta considers hate speech (they do still ban hate speech in general, just are more specific now about what that is). For example, they just consider LGBTQ+ people being mentally ill to be a fact or at least setting up for debate. They even provide examples of what they consider to be “opinion” and thus “free speech” and not “hate speech” like calling trans and non-binary people “it” or calling women “household objects” to dehumanize them is considered not hate speech by them.
So, either you need to specifically call out all the things you consider hate speech that far right people do not, or you need to allow moderators to do their job as members of society that understand what is hate and what is not. It’s never black and white.
Or we could just be subjective and use our judgement when it comes to those things. The timing with the Meta thing was truly, truly unfortunate. This was completely unrelated and just happened to look similar. Of course we’ve never had professional fact checkers here.
Or we could just be subjective and use our judgement when it comes to those things.
How is that opinion compatible with forcing community mods to validate & allow misinformation and trolling?
If you’re going to say speech saying a person is mentally ill because they are LGBTQ+ or that a woman are “household property” needs to be evaluated subjectively and these changes are saying that moderators should not make subjective determinations and should err on the side of assuming they are OK, then you are saying that these things are not hate speech and thus not covered by the hate speech policy. And with moderation of X and Meta now saying these things are not hate speech, it seems even more likely that moderators will need to leave these things in place due to this policy. And in that case I’ll be leaving as I don’t wish to be the target of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-autism, or any other hate speech that is now allowed on X and Meta and will likely have to be allowed here as some group considers them not hate speech.
That’s an awful lot of ifs and assumptions. Especially when I’ve often said the opposite (just not in every comment).
I understand the parallels with the Meta thing, which is truly unfortunate. More bad timing than anything else. We didn’t replace professional fact checkers. We weren’t doing this to allow hate speech. We’re not Facebook or Reddit.
But if this policy goes into effect. You are saying it’s all subjective and thus the hate speech policy only applies if you or a server level admin say it’s hate speech. You’re asking moderators not to moderate if there’s any question about whether it is OK or not. And a large number of people now believe it’s OK which is why X and Meta have these policies, so to me and likely to many moderators here, you’re saying exactly as Meta just said, don’t moderate these things as hate speech. Remember, Meta also still has an anti-hate speech policy, it’s just that these subjects are no longer considered hate speech by enough of their users that they don’t allow moderation of it. You’re asking for the exact same thing, you just haven’t called out the specifics, you’re leaving it “subjective”. And with moderation, abstaining from action is the exact same as acceptance.
Please do ban anyone who trolls with the “mental illness” thing. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.
Hello,
Any idea when the new announcement will be made, following the edit?
It isn’t necessarily ‘pure hate speech’ and shutting off the discussion is what is leading you to come to this conclusion. If a pill were developed that allowed someone diagnosed with autism to live more like the general public without a lifetime of current therapies, and no side-effects why is me suggesting they consider this option ‘pure hate’? Can you see how one-sided your stance is?
Because most are saying that my existence is a disease to be cured and not simply a different way of existing. It’s like telling a black person that drug should be developed to bleach their skin so they can live more like the general public without a lifetime of prejudices. Autism only requires therapy to force us to act differently than our brains tell us to act. Not because oír normal way of acting is somehow self-destructive, but because it breaks social norms and makes others uncomfortable. The “cure” is fir other people to accept us as we are, just like the “cure” for being black is to accept them not change them.
Because most are saying that
So, not ‘pure hate’. There’s some impurities in there apparently.
There are more issues with autism than ‘it breaks social norms’ and seeking treatments for the condition is looking to improve lives, not being hateful.
I didn’t say treatment wasn’t good. I said it wasnt something to cure. Just like black people might seek counseling for how to deal with the inequalities, autistic people need treatment to deal with the issues that society causes for them. I’m saying anything that’s saying Autism is something to be “cured” is hate speech. You’re saying that Autistic people like me should exist as we are, but change to fit society, just like saying a black person should change their skin color to fit in better. Autism is not a disease regardless of what companiea like Autism Speaks try to push. It is simply a different way of thinking.
So yes, is you’re one of the people specifically saying that Autism shouldn’t exist and needs to be cured that is pure hate speech. It you’re saying it requires treatment, then it depends on the specifics and thus my use of the word “most”. So it saying it needs a cure should be moderated as hate speech. But if no hate speech is being moderated to allow thing that aren’t hate speech that doesn’t make sense. If you understand what is and what isnt hate speech, then it’s easy to moderate bad from less obviously good or bad. It’s not a thin line.
Autism is more than just social difficulties. There are repetitive behavioural problems that can be downright harmful to the individual if particularly severe. To me it sounds like you are or know someone with autism that isn’t particularly severe and are pretty comfortable with it. That’s great, but what about those suffering from the disorder that aren’t responding to treatment as well to the point their communication deficits are causing problems with their education and future prospects? What do you say to those whom a cure could vastly improve their life? I have a hard time understanding how treatment is ‘good’ but cure is ‘hate’. Wanting a cure to be available isn’t the same as expecting it be mandatory.
I think the issue is you are assuming some level of judgment or condescension because of the condition and that is not the case. A person with autism is a person and absolutely be treated as such.
Hey, checking your conversation here, I’m sorry you have to constantly defend your existence because the mods here aren’t doing their job of creating a safe space. You may want to check hexbear, their harsher moderation would have definitely not allowed this chain of comments to happen
This is a hard one to enforce but it should result in a much more pleasant experience overall. I think we have something great on Lemmy and decisions like this set us apart from places like reddit.
“The moon is upside down in Australia”
Sounds like the deep state took over LW
Probably gonna activate all of our 5g brain chips now
Gay frogs!
Pretty sure I agree with the gist of this, and it’s welcome. My corner is small anyway, with not a lot of trolls and troublemakers, and I hope I’m already in line with this policy.
Well, unless I’m one of the mods who’ll “receive an immediate notice with a link to this new policy.”
I posted this in another thread but I also wanted to say it here so it’s more likely one of you will see it. I get the intention behind this, and I think it’s well intentioned, but it’s also definitely the wrong way to go about things. By lumping opposing viewpoints and misinformation together, all you end up doing is implying that having a difference in opinion on something more subjective is tantamount to spreading a proven lie, and lending credence to misinformation. A common tactic used to try and spread the influence of hate or misinformation is to present it as a “different opinion” and ask people to debate it. Doing so leads to others coming across the misinfo seeing responses that discuss it, and even if most of those are attempting to argue against it, it makes it seem like something that is a debatable opinion instead of an objective falsehood. Someone posting links to sources that show how being trans isn’t mental health issue for the 1000th time wont convince anyone that they’re wrong for believing so, but it will add another example of people arguing about an idea, making those without an opinion see the ideas as both equally worthy of consideration. Forcing moderators to engage in debate is the exact scenario people who post this sort of disguised hate would love.
Even if the person posting it genuinely believes the statement to be true, there are studies that show presenting someone with sources that refute something they hold as fact doesn’t get them to change their mind.
If the thread in question is actually subjective, then preventing moderators from removing just because they disagree is great. The goal of preventing overmodedation of dissenting opinions is extremely important. You cannot do so by equating them with blatent lies and hate though, as that will run counter to both goals this policy has in mind. Blurring the line between them like this will just make misinformation harder to spot, and disagreements easier to mistake as falsehoods.
A common tactic used to try and spread the influence of hate or misinformation is to present it as a “different opinion” and ask people to debate it.
Very good point
We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
So basically you’re saying people should be allowed to post blatant false information and everybody should try their best to tell them they’re wrong rather than doing the sensible thing of stopping false information spreading in the first place.
People who would post that stuff would never argue with good intentions and would often argue in bad faith. What you’re suggesting trolling should be allowed, moderators and community members need to waste their time engaging with controversial content nobody wants to see, and threads will have even more people fighting in them. Who decides when wrong info and propaganda posts are allowed to be removed? LW admins? You won’t be able to keep up and are guaranteed to incite distrust in your community either way.
I’m with reducing echo chambers and taking action on bad moderators that abuse their positions, but making the blanket statement that basically translates to “flat earthers are now welcome here whether you like it or not, get ready to see posts unironically arguing about why flat earth is right in your feed” surely can ring some bells on why this is a bad idea.
This is like the third time LW tried to be front-and-center in deciding how conversations should happen on Lemmy. You are the most popular Lemmy instance and most content is on your instance. This isn’t an experimental safe space instance to dictate how social media should work. Please understand that any weirdly aggressive stances you take affects everyone.
Good fucking luck.
FlyingSquid is known to violate this on /c/world
How? Genuinely curious. Their name is everywhere and I often see him discuss with people who disagree with him.
