There will be a new announcement soon to clarify.
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.
Elon, Zuckerberg, whatever weirdos run Lemmy.world. The toadies are all lining up for Trump’s new world order, huh? Way to highlight the potential weak points of the fediverse when a server’s admins decide to jump on the big tech trend of forcing mods and users to accept disinformation cluttering their feed as if it’s equal to facts so long as it’s written politely. At least we know who’s the asshole at those companies. You sycophants are faceless.
This is my last post on this username. And I’ll never subscribe to another Lemmy.world community again. This server can no longer be trusted. At this point you people might as well just make spez an admin. Your administrative goals are in sync. Even your jargon like “respectful dissent™” is just a repackaging of Reddit’s “valuable discussion™“ excuse for allowing disinformation on their platform.
Having left Lemmy world myself, the communities aren’t at fault. Hopefully people will find a better instance. There are quite a few out there.
Wouldn’t this also do the opposite? prevent a sub like the_donald or lemmygrad from just banning everyone they don’t like? Did this place have professional fact checkers before?
You can ban the_donald for attacks on people or groups, same for lemmygrad. Having flat earthers in every community is a parallel matter.
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.
We are already seeing the fallout from this as there is a right wing chud spewing all sorts of half truths, hate speech and misinformation. @max55@lemm.ee is gonna tank your credibility.
Banned: https://lemm.ee/u/max55
Ban him
Straight up bullshit and a completely half-baked, ill-considered, ill-conceived idea. Completely disconnected from reality.
Please do not enshittify please do not enshittify please do not enshittify… Oh well too late
Just move to a better instance lol, wasn’t that the entire point of coming here? Lemmy.zip and Lemm.ee have been great.
Lemmy.zip is truly awesome
deleted by creator
Do these “flat earth” opinions that we’re meant to treat with unearned respect include bigoted opinions? Because this is dangerously close to being a “don’t sass the nazis” policy.
No. The ToS still applies.
then do something about @max55@lemm.ee
Let’s say every community allows one lunatic post. It’s downvoted to hell and thoroughly refuted in the comments.
Every time someone tries to say the same thing again under a different post, the comment gets a reply “[lunatic opinion] was refuted under [lunatic post link] - you may comment there” and then the stray lunatic comment is removed. Only the reply stays to inform other lunatics. Other comments saying the same lunatic opinion again are removed, because the canonical reply linking the canonical lunatic post is already in the comments. All discussion about the lunatic opinion will be contained under the canonical lunatic post.
Would this work?
If that would work they wouldn’t have those opinions to begin with, they always think they have a unique smarter interpretation of the truth and facts and largely enjoy arguing about their alternative facts so they can feel superior more than they care about the shape of the earth for how much it’ll affect their lives
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.
This just translates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean or “reversion to mediocrity”. Much like 🤬🤬🤬🤬it’s
/all, every time that mainstream spills into a community it ruins it and brings it closer to the mainstream.In biology, you may recognize some of these phenomena from biochemistry: osmosis and diffusion. The demand to disable the “semi-permeable membrane” ends the purpose of the compartment.
Either the invading posts/comments get removed or the influx of participants (including voting) has to be rationed somehow. Doing neither is not a discussion about narratives, it’s a mobbing. It’s the opposite of promoting discourse, as that setup heavily favors the “mainstream” narrative, the status quo.
I should mention that I’ve been a moderator of internet communities since before Web 2.0 and I find the moderation tools for Lemmy type platforms to be terrible. If the expectation is to not have practical moderation, but instead to separate into fedi-islands and block the problematic networks, well, that would be a very blunt way to get to the same goals. Instead of having moderators individually ban users, you have admins ban entire networks of users.
There is no getting away from the need for moderators. Musk proved that again since he took over Twitter. Zuckerberg is proving it again now. You’re not building a protopia by hampering moderation, you’re building a cyber-wasteland. Any success with that will be temporary, like a pump and dump: you get a period of growth and a honeymoon, and then the critical mass of assholes is achieved and they turn everything to shit, and then most users have to start searching for greener
pasturesfood forests to migrate to. Another term for that is unsustainable, it can’t last.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.
Rationality is much more complex than you think. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic should’ve taught you that already, first hand. The simple model of persuasion by presenting reasonable arguments and evidence is wrong. There’s an entire field looking into cognitive biases that show how irrational humans are. How exactly do you plan to argue with people who believe in “alternative facts” and “post-truth”?
All I see in the article you posted is a lack of experience in dealing with bullshit, a lack of understanding of the viral or memetic nature of bullshit.
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.
It’s disheartening that you haven’t learned yet that flateartherism is a variant of creationism, another religiously inspired pseudoscience.
Well said the majority will often want to oppress the minority.
The phrase “common sense” is flawed as the majority have been wrong about certain topics in the past like lobotomies being used to “correct problematic behaviour”.
I don’t have the time or desire to go around arguing with every tankie troll on the platform who says that the Ukraine war is the west’s fault or that the Holomodor or the Uyghur genocide or Tienamen Square massacre didn’t happen. They are too numerous and it accomplishes nothing.
I simply block them. Which leaves them to troll everyone else and spread more misinformation. Mods in communities should have every right to ban trolls as well, otherwise they will strangle said community and drive all sane people out.
I’m all for a good spirited conversation but that’s not what they want. They just want to drown out all conversation with their narrative.
Why not add subscribable block lists like Bluesky has? Then it would be easier to accept such a policy.
Yep. Are the admins going to at least force mods on world to let me call them a tankie when they post tankie shit? Cause I got banned from a .world comm for exactly that.
How about containing the trolls under one canonical troll post? See comment https://lemmy.world/comment/14443401
Okay, but one man’s lunatic is another man’s genius. Subscribable block lists allow you to tailor your blocking to the specific types of lunatics you dislike.
If the blocklist subscription isn’t part of Lemmy registration procedure, a new user will see tankies and leave.
I dunno, it seems to be working for Bluesky. But I agree, it should be part of the registration process or at least somewhere prominent in the UI so newbies know to do it. Probably with a primer and warning on what tankies are ;-).
Holomodor
Tienamen
At least learn to spell your Radio Free Europe/Asia propaganda before you try and position yourself as an educated person on it
Tankie
Read a book before faking outrage at historical events you can’t spell
Wasn’t the person who mentioned those atrocities .
Maybe don’t back authoritarian regimes fucko.
Then stop defending dumbasses whose analysis of reality is vibes-based.
Maybe don’t reject every successful socialist revolution in history and maybe stop swallowing US state propaganda whole
Look who can’t take a small bit of criticism about the government’s they support who are just as shitty as the one they don’t like.
The mindless purity tests that you enact do nothing but isolate you.
Sure, not you guys calling other leftists tankies and crying when we answer.
I respectfully disagree with you being a tankie and an absolute shill for authoritarians and dictators.
Am I doing this right?
I respectfully disagree with you being a tankie
Well, don’t disagree with me being a tankie because I am a tankie.
You’re a shill for US imperialism by being against those who fought the hardest against it, and most if not all of your position on international policy falls in line with every guide point of the US Department of State. Using “tankie” as an insult you’re aligning yourself in the wrong side of the Korean war, in the wrong side of the Vietnam war, in the wrong side of the war in Afghanistan, in the wrong side of the invasion of Iraq… Am I doing this right?
What’s the difference between days and years? Putin said 3 year SMO right? To protect people in two specific regions? No wait it was to denazify Ukraine. No wait it was to prevent NATO expansion. No wait…
I don’t know why you assume I’m gonna defend Putin though? He’s a proto-fascist, I’m a communist, we don’t go well together you see? Why did you start doing whataboutism immediately?
Because putin is standing up to the evil US and their puppet NATO. Therefore he’s the best leader since Stalin.
Honestly it’s a safe bet tankies will defend Russia most of the time.
Putin is standing up to evil US and NATO, that doesn’t make him an angel, that’s not the only thing a communist cares about.
Again, who are you arguing against
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).
It is a complex situation for sure. Like despite being a blanket rule it will not affect all communities equally bc some are more prone to such behaviors than others.
And what if someone says something promoting murder - like if it is directed at a billionaire, does that make it okay? Okay then, what about the reverse: saying that it should be okay for billionaires to murder the lesser people?
Different people have a wide variety of takes on those true, valid, actual straight-up “facts” (that killing = violence, regardless of justified or not), bc as human beings we cannot help but add in our own interpretations to them. e.g. do you remember that post 18 days ago to TenForward (titled “Do you want a star trek future?”) - I for one found it shocking and blocked several communities after that, bc I choose not to see such.
Someone else’s “freedom of speech” is my own freedom to STFU or else leave, apparently, and more’s the pity. But that’s just how the Intolerance Paradox / phenomenon of a Nazi bar works, and there is no getting around that. We seem to be inching closer and closer to being a Nazi bar, and strangely also a leftist version of that at the same time, on different instances.
I for one won’t blame you if you end up needing to move a community elsewhere, in the worst-case scenario. But… perhaps it is too early to judge, and maybe this post is merely worded confusingly - not that it is not inching ever closer towards being a Nazi bar, but just that it is inching rather than outright sprinting? Heck, I even agree with the last sentence, as you do as well, it is - as you have said - everything else going along with it that is so troubling.
But at the end of the day, it is their instance, to do with as they please. As too is yours, and you wouldn’t want mods counteracting your admin mandate? So while it is sad to see this sudden and radical departure from how LW used to do things, we must respect their decision and each of us switch to think about what our own will be in response.
Blaze is recommending over in r/RedditAlternatives that anyone from there and in the USA wanting to check out Lemmy to join Discuss.Online. You might think about that one for a new community, or dubvee.org if you are okay with the increased traffic. If need be ofc, though perhaps it won’t be?
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.
We don’t intend to allow hate speech on the basis of “just asking questions”.
Are you going to demod people for banning people who do it, without playing along?
No. The ToS still applies. We’re not going to demod anyone for following the ToS.
You mean like LW ToS 8.0 against misinformation? So interesting that as soon as the head admin steps down, this ridiculous bullshit crops up. Sounds like he was holding back the floodgates from the other admins’ worst impulses, like the one a few months ago who briefly overtook an entire community because what they were saying agreed with science but hurt his fee-fees.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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…
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.
Removed by mod
If u think quoting a saying is a valid argument then that truly is mental illness
If you think quoting a saying and then elaborating on how it applies isn’t a valid argument, then you’re either arguing in bad faith, dangerously obtuse, or both. Judging by your continuing insistence on labeling anyone who disagrees with your view insane, I’m gonna guess it’s both.
Double think is one hell of a drug
You clearly don’t know what double think means if you think distinguishing between two superficially similar but substantially different things is an example of double think.
Thats a very interesting place to draw the line on free speach
Yeah, I tend to draw the line just before intentional and unnecessary harm. I’m kooky like that 🙄
Please explain where u draw the line on harmfull disinformation
I already did. Very clearly.
Also by the rules equality it doesnt matter if ur in a group of vulnerabile people in gonna treat u the same.
That’s some bigotry- and victimization- justifying horseshit. Treating everyone equally does not mean treating respectful debate and othering abuse as equally valid.
Words can be weapons and how and why they’re wielded matters just as much as with physical weapons.
Again by rule of equallity i dont give a fuck what group u are im gonna be equallity offensive to u.
That’s STILL not how equality works. You’re accidentally sorta right, though: your closed minded vitriol is loathsome and offensive to every decent person, not just the ones it victimizes.
And here u are arguing that ur not mentally ill
Nope. I’m arguing that not subscribing to your “free speech absolutism” nonsense is not proof of mental illness. Before diagnosing strangers for disagreeing with your warped perspective, maybe crack open a medical textbook or just a dictionary. Your definition of mental illness is histrionic and bigoted to say the least.
U know what the extremely metallh ill oftem claim?
Seriously. Look up what mental illness is. This willful ignorance shtick is not the principled stand you think it is. It’s idiocy typical of several different personality disorders (which I’m not armchair diagnosing you with and which isn’t the same thing as mental illness).
I though the irony if if u responded would be pretty funny.
You’re getting increasingly incoherent and once again showing ignorance of the actual meanings of words. Are you under the influence of any intoxicants or is this combination of belligerence and idiocy just how you always act?
Whats the poiny of telling someone to fuck off if u dont mean to harm my feelings
I DO mean to insult you and “harm your feelings”. You see, unlike the innocent people already being stigmatized and othered who you insist on antagonizing and condemning, you have actually CHOSEN to assign yourself the role of Devil’s Advocate to protect hate speech and thus deserve emotional harm that might make you less comfortable on your edgelord throne of bullshit.
Are u excercising ur right to offend me?
I am indeed. Bigots and their defenders aren’t a vulnerable and persecuted group.
Ohh the irony.
Seriously, just do a search for “irony definition”.
Also if u reapond to any of this please explain where u draw thw line on harmfull disinformation
Already did.
(i feel we can have an actually productive conversation about that).
Based on this and your initial comment, I highly doubt it, but I’ll give you one last reply to demonstrate that any of this is getting through to you. If your reply to this indicates that it hasn’t, I’ll consider you unreachable and stop wasting my time.
If you think quoting a saying and then elaborating on how it applies isn’t a valid argument, then you’re either arguing in bad faith, dangerously obtuse, or both. Judging by your continuing insistence on labeling anyone who disagrees with your view insane, I’m gonna guess it’s both.
Well u didnt elaborate u quoted a saying to dismiss the core point of my argument without addressing it.
You clearly don’t know what double think means if you think distinguishing between two superficially similar but substantially different things is an example of double think.
No i think both ideas are fundamentally incongruent and thus your reconsilition of them is doublethink (if this by choice i do not know).
Yeah, I tend to draw the line just before intentional and unnecessary harm. I’m kooky like that 🙄
I more meant define how/when words are causing intentional and unnessasary harm. I see you trying to avoid specifics here.
I already did. Very clearly.
U gave a vague a subjectivly interpretable definition, draw a fuckibg line a stand on it.
That’s some bigotry- and victimization- justifying horseshit. Treating everyone equally does not mean treating respectful debate and othering abuse as equally valid.
No it means treating ur dumbassery just the same as anyone else
Words can be weapons and how and why they’re wielded matters just as much as with physical weapons.
When was the last time someone was executed by words. When was the last time someone was killed by words. Words may encourage someone to kill onself but words ars not responsible for that the actions of someone upin themselves is.
That’s STILL not how equality works. You’re accidentally sorta right, though: your closed minded vitriol is loathsome and offensive to every decent person, not just the ones it victimizes.
The fucking dictionary “the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment” im doing my part by treating u equally to anyone else spouting anti liberty shite.
Nope. I’m arguing that not subscribing to your “free speech absolutism” nonsense is not proof of mental illness. Before diagnosing strangers for disagreeing with your warped perspective, maybe crack open a medical textbook or just a dictionary. Your definition of mental illness is histrionic and bigoted to say the least.
Im not a free speach absolutists i draw the line at actionable incitment of violence. I didnt actually say u had a mental illness i simply outlined a set of beliefs i believed to be exhibited by people i believe to be mentaly ill and u put urself square inside that box of belief.
Seriously. Look up what mental illness is. This willful ignorance shtick is not the principled stand you think it is. It’s idiocy typical of several different personality disorders (which I’m not armchair diagnosing you with and which isn’t the same thing as mental illness).
Again didnt call u mentally ill.
You’re getting increasingly incoherent and once again showing ignorance of the actual meanings of words. Are you under the influence of any intoxicants or is this combination of belligerence and idiocy just how you always act?
If u wanna talk about meaning of words lets talk about the menqibf of words “free speach”.
I DO mean to insult you and “harm your feelings”. You see, unlike the innocent people already being stigmatized and othered who you insist on antagonizing and condemning, you have actually CHOSEN to assign yourself the role of Devil’s Advocate to protect hate speech and thus deserve emotional harm that might make you less comfortable on your edgelord throne of bullshit.
So ur using speach with the goal to bring me harm “deserve emotional harm”. Im a firm believer in equallity and thus if that is ur right to do to me it is my right to do to literally everyone else.
I am indeed. Bigots and their defenders aren’t a vulnerable and persecuted group.
Again i dont give a single fuck what group u are im gonna treat u the same as anyone else. U dont get special treatment u are just like everyone else
Seriously, just do a search for “irony definition”.
Referring me to google is not a rebuttal its a condescending bad faith insult.
Based on this and your initial comment, I highly doubt it, but I’ll give you one last reply to demonstrate that any of this is getting through to you. If your reply to this indicates that it hasn’t, I’ll consider you unreachable and stop wasting my time.
So essentially what ur saying is that if i dont agree with you then ur gonna consider me unreachable and a lost cause. Seems like ur incapable of accepting me because of my differing beliefs, imagine if thats how i treated you for whatever group u identify as (dont tell me i dont know and thus cant be bias, nor do i give a single fuck).
Good chat i had fun.
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.
lemmy.world is a great instance for your first account. Part of the value of Lemmy is being able to move to another instance once you know your way around.
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!
What a real Steve Huffman post. Really impressive.
“A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes.”
This policy change will only reward bad actors. This sort of behavior needs to be stopped ASAP, simply correcting the record after the damage is done is not enough.
Have you seen the thread that brought this about? It was one group of vegans lamenting at a formerly vegan restaurant which added a small number of non-vegan options to try and attract enough customers not to close, and then closing regardless when that didn’t work. Then there was respectful debate as to whether it is better for every restaurant to have a small number of vegan options, or for one restaurant to be 100% vegan. The mods of that community shut the whole thing down, despite it being incredibly respectful, because to them any possible concession in any circumstances makes you a “fake vegan” and worthy of a ban.
This rule change could be problematic if applied in the wrong circumstances, but it’s being enacted for a very clear and beneficial purpose.
so much drama stems from the vegan community it’s honestly hysterical. Textbook case of why vegans are memed on so hard
And? Go make a new community if you don’t like how one is run, don’t invite misinformation and trolls into all spaces because you don’t agree with how one mod runs their community.
It sounds like you’re being trolled by the mods. Open a different vegan community, even if it’s small. Also, in almost every other instance, this rule change would be a bad thing.
I did that. !vegan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Baby steps is not what veganism is about, that’s flexitarinism.
Your opinion on veganism does not justify the mods’ abuse of their power to silence other vegans.
You do not get to bend words to suit your beliefs. Every legitimate vegan community would ban anyone who falsely claims they’re vegan. It’s always an abuse of power every time vegans moderates their communities but not when carnivore grifters do it.
You do not get to bend words to suit your beliefs
But apparently you do? Almost nobody is a carnivore. They’re more rare than vegans by far. I think the word you were looking for was omnivore.
Anyway, the mods of the community you seem so desperate to defend were banning vegans. Vegans who were discussing what they sincerely think is best for them as vegans. I don’t understand how you can think that’s ok, regardless of how one chooses to define what vegan means.
But apparently you do?
Well yes because I dont eat/use animal products for ethical reasons. A carnist obviously knows the least about this subject.
You’re dismissing the definition from the vegan society because it allows you to participate in reductionism. Go hang out with the flexitarians, vegetarians and the plant-based if you want to engage in the kind of conversation.
There are so many people who claim to be “vegan” who consume honey or oysters or fish for crying out loud. No wonder why the general population is so confused on what being vegan actually means.
Not to mention all the bad actors who lie about “being vegan” or that they know “someone is vegan” to push false narratives about the community in an attempt to discredit the whole movement.
Ok, so (a) you don’t know how language works, and (b) you’re happy to be a complete hypocrite and insist people use your personal definition of vegan while using “carnivore” to refer to what is properly “omnivore”. Nice.
Anyway, an ethical vegan is no “more vegan” than a dietary vegan or an environmental vegan. If you want to have arguments amongst yourselves about who is “better”, go ahead. Just don’t try to do it by twisting the definition of the word itself.
This is why people shit on vegans.
This is some of the most hilarious stuff I have ever read on reddit or lemmy. When word of these changes started, I thought it’d be about the DNC and genocide. Nope. Vegans.
For following proper definitions?
People hate vegans because they feel guilty about their actions.
Flexitarian: one whose normally meatless diet occasionally includes meat or fish.
Vegan: a person who follows the philosophy and way of living that excludes all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty for food, clothing or any other purpose.
This is why I’m going to block you for arguing in bad faith.
I’m not arguing? I’m not whoever you were talking to before.
People hate vegans because they’re pompous and irritating
As long as they bring their own food to events and dont make others cater to their whims, who cares. They are free to watch me eat my bacon and it means more bacon for me, I figure. The ones I know are easly enough to shut down if they try to dominate a conversation. Many of them are meat-curious, and converting them passes the time.
Wrong, people do not like the status quo being challenged.
People in certain places in the world do not appreciate being told to stop beating or eating dogs. They think those animal advocates are “rude”.
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?
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/ could be a good fit for you
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.
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
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.
