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.
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.
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.
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."
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:
https://youtu.be/xuaHRN7UhRo#t=1m04s
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.
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.
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.
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.
If u think quoting a saying is a valid argument then that truly is mental illness.
Double think is one hell of a drug. Thats a very interesting place to draw the line on free speach. Please explain where u draw the line on harmfull disinformation. Also by the rules equality it doesnt matter if ur in a group of vulnerabile people in gonna treat u the same.
Again by rule of equallity i dont give a fuck what group u are im gonna be equallity offensive to u.
And here u are arguing that ur not mentally ill. U know what the extremely metallh ill oftem claim? I though the irony if if u responded would be pretty funny.
Whats the poiny of telling someone to fuck off if u dont mean to harm my feelings? Are u excercising ur right to offend me? Ohh the irony.
Also if u reapond to any of this please explain where u draw thw line on harmfull disinformation (i feel we can have an actually productive conversation about that).
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.
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.
Yeah, I tend to draw the line just before intentional and unnecessary harm. I'm kooky like that 🙄
I already did. Very clearly.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
I am indeed. Bigots and their defenders aren't a vulnerable and persecuted group.
Seriously, just do a search for "irony definition".
Already did.
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.
Well u didnt elaborate u quoted a saying to dismiss the core point of my argument without addressing it.
No i think both ideas are fundamentally incongruent and thus your reconsilition of them is doublethink (if this by choice i do not know).
I more meant define how/when words are causing intentional and unnessasary harm. I see you trying to avoid specifics here.
U gave a vague a subjectivly interpretable definition, draw a fuckibg line a stand on it.
No it means treating ur dumbassery just the same as anyone else
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.
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.
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.
Again didnt call u mentally ill.
If u wanna talk about meaning of words lets talk about the menqibf of words "free speach".
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.
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
Referring me to google is not a rebuttal its a condescending bad faith insult.
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.
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.
So people have to debunk flat-earthers theories everytime they show up? Seems unrealistic
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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.
From the post:
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.
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.
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 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.
At least the two following communities are going to be either shut down or mod replaced:
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.