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 !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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.
I think Reddit is dysfunctional because people are dysfunctional. My hope is to be able to address that by improving people’s health & function via the gut microbiome.
wat
There’s a citation there. You didn’t want to click it and learn something new?
EDIT: Interesting. The majority of people on lemmy are anti-learning…
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.
We’re not going to allow queer people to be attacked using the same old tropes. That’s not what this is about. The coincidence with Meta is unfortunate timing.
This is generally about manipulating people through echo chambers. It’s about allowing users to counter misinformation, particularly from moderators.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Just saw your edits:
We’re not going to allow queer people to be attacked using the same old tropes. That’s not what this is about. The coincidence with Meta is unfortunate timing.
This is generally about manipulating people through echo chambers. It’s about allowing users to counter misinformation, particularly from moderators.
I’m not saying allowing attacks on queer people was the intention of this policy, but as-written, this policy absolutely has that side effect and more. The fact that the policy was so easy to interpret as being similar to Meta’s just goes to show how poorly written and poorly thought out this policy is.
As-written, this policy leaves too much open to interpretation, makes no mention of how it meshes with the existing TOS, removes agency from moderators to keep their communities on point and civil, and is generally punishing all moderators/communities for the actions of a few. Furthermore, forcing mods to “debate” every crackpot claim just lends credence to the claim that it’s something even worth discussing.
Again, I highly encourage the team to reconsider this entire change and go back to the drawing board for a solution to a problem that only seems to affect a minority of communities.
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.
A zero tolerance policy against zero tolerance policies against intolerance and mis/dis/malinformation? The explanation was a bit figurative language heavy.
yeah I don’t really follow. Would be better if they gave a direct example of it.
I assume !usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world banning people who disagree with the mod, and that vegan one banning actual vegans for being “fake” are what’s being talked about, but I’m not sure.
Some clarification would be nice.
A restaurant that serves animal products is flexitarian not vegan. Definitions should not be watered down. Anyone who advocates for the use of animal products contradicts the definition of veganism:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
Lamenting the fact that a formerly-vegan-only restaurant adding a small number of meat products in a desperate attempt to stay open, and failing, is not something that should get one banned from vegan spaces. Nor is suggesting that, in your opinion, it would be a good thing for all restaurants to have a couple of vegan options on the menu. You don’t need to argue about or change the definition of veganism to see that. rbn and gaael did not deserve to be treated in the abusive way the mods of that community treated them.
FlyingSquid is known to violate this on /c/world
How? Genuinely curious. Their name is everywhere and I often see them discuss with people who disagree with them.
So c/world will start allowing all sources of news?
I would be happy enough if its moderator stopped instigating and escalating conflict with individual community members.
