World News

39575 readers

1996 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

Moderation Policy Change - Respectful Dissent (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A new announcement is coming soon that will clarify matters.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/24135976

~~> 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.~~

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 3 points 3 days ago

I was really trying not to get drawn into this. Maybe I am not strong enough.

You literally have comments in the mod-complaint post about how you think anarchism is fundamentally flawed.

I said I thought it had some fatal flaws. Then, two different people came out to tell me I was ignorant about anarchism. I allowed as how maybe I was, and asked them what I should read to learn more. Then I read it. Then I got back to them to say I liked it a lot, and on reflection made it clear that I was talking about a particular breed of faux anarchism, and not anything to do with the philosophy I was reading about in Kropotkin.

You know, like trolls do.

The exchange is here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/30753583/14477565

It's honestly kind of hard to remember, in internet spaces, that most people are reasonable. It's easy to misinterpret things or classify someone you're talking to as some kind of "enemy" of one breed or another, but most people can work past it. I talked about it in that comments section. At a certain point I made a realization that almost everybody there, even among people who were telling me I was wrong, were pretty civil about it. They said what they said, I said what I said, and we sort of moved on our separate ways having had the exchange. All good.

Then there were a very small minority of accounts where it had to be personal. It's not enough just to disagree and talk about it. Someone has to be "bad", and someone has to "win." People will start reaching for what the other person really meant to do, or how they really feel about things. It's like they can't let it resolve into anything positive; they have to "prove their point" and assign a bad belief or action to the enemy so they can succeed in their case that the other person is "bad."

I think that second type of argumentation is actually a small minority. I think they're just super loud and tend to dominate comments sections sometimes, because they trigger other people and trigger each other, and they never stop once they get started. Part of the reason I feel like defending myself here is that I do feel like it's relevant to look back at that comments section as a whole, and see how overall productive it is. (It also doesn't say what you think it says, although there is a minority that does think what you said, yes. Sort by top, read the top five comments, and you tell me what the consensus is.) The more that it is "You are trolling! You must shut up!", the less light and the more heat the overall exchange of words is going to generate.

The one thing I will allow, is that maybe I have a type of sarcasm and instant-disagreement that makes it easy for something to spiral into more of an argument than it needs to be, or cause way more friction than needs to be there. You can see some of that in the comments section too. I'm not doing it for the sake of trolling. I am very sincerely explaining what it is that I think, and why, and I'm generally listening for the counter-explanation. If someone makes a point that I think has a fatal flaw I will sometimes point it out in, I guess, a very mean and talking-down type of way. That part I can see, yeah, if that's what you're talking about, maybe you are right that I should not do that.