Serinus @ Serinus @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

2,258

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

It states nothing like that. You're filling in the blanks with things you want to be angry about.

Please do ban anyone who trolls with the "mental illness" thing. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

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.

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.

And I think your comment here is a hell of a lot more valuable than starting out with "IDK How to tell you this, but fascist racists own everything and are planning to kill a whole bunch of people soon."

You can't just skip to the end of the worst case scenario without people blowing you off. I mostly agree with you; I just think that particular messaging is damaging.

The purpose is to allow pinholes through echo chambers with the idea that the odd antivax comment is easier to deal with than the odd "Russia is waging a war of aggression" comment in a pro-Russia community.

One of those stances requires a black box with other ideas kept out or it collapses. That has recently been done with heavy, heavy moderation banning large numbers of people. That's the kind of moderation we're looking to rein in.

I've focused on the most controversial examples, because to some people (if they're acting genuinely), that's what it might look like to them. If you want a flat earth community, that's fine, as long as you allow people to call it out as a joke once in a while.

The purpose is to encourage discussion where it's most needed, usually where moderators are preventing it.

1% is 3.8 million people. They'll likely be ostracized, forced into hiding, and we all know the effects of that.

We're both describing terrible things, terrible things that are short of hunting people down and loading them into trains.

Your comparison does a disservice to everyone. Setting the bar at the damn holocaust gives our opponents an easy out. "They act like we're", "we're just", are the natural, easy responses.

Don't give them easy outs. Things can be less terrible than the actual Holocaust and still be terrible.

kill a whole bunch of people soon

If you don't couch this a whole lot, it undermines the seriousness of what is actually about to happen.

Anything less than tens of millions dead falls short of your comment. And that's likely not the reality.

No. The ToS still applies.

No. The ToS still applies. We're not going to demod anyone for following the ToS.

We don't intend to allow hate speech on the basis of "just asking questions".

Mods are still generally going to have a lot of discretion. How often do you see admins get involved here?

We're not going to allow hate speech. This is fully intended to give us something against those who, as you say, use the button as a weapon.

Give us a chance and let's see how this actually plays out.

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.

1. 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.

No? Is it necessary to go to terrible sources in order to make your point?

A lot of that falls under "attacks on users" or "attacks on groups". Of course we're still going to enforce that.

"Don’t make us de-mod you" is effectively what a lot of this comes down to. The goal is to be just a little less quick with moderation tools and, when we can, use our words a bit more.

I don't expect this to change much for 95% of communities. The ones that are really going to have to change are the ones with super fragile philosophies that can't stand up to a single sentence of criticism.

Why are you tipping if there's a line? The line implies self service.

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.

He's .ml. The point is to make sure we never fix anything.

How much effort do you think Meta, Twitter, and Reddit put into getting open social media people to fight against themselves?

Yeah, I don't expect it to scale well. Certainly not as well as Rust.