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.
“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.
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.
Any comment on this one?
https://lemmy.world/post/23229045
I checked the thread, those comments are still removed: https://lemmy.world/comment/13966483
Holy shit lw finally makes a good moderation decision. This is great this will open up lemmy to more free speach make it more welcoming to normies with opinions that differ from the lemmy echochamber.
This will not be popular but it is nessasary to ensure lemmy and Activpub can become mainstream and continue to maintain its open nature.
This is brilliant.
I like the pinholes theory and I think it’s a wise idea
I support you in this decision. To me, Lemmy is fundamentally about the free exchange of ideas, independent from the prevailing mainstream dogma. This platform was built to accommodate a diversity of experiences and viewpoints, and allow people to engage with unfamiliar perspectives without being overwhelmed by them.
This policy only applies to lemmy.world, it doesn’t apply to every server on the fediverse. If the complainers truly feel that their experience is being negatively impacted by this policy, then go ahead and move to one of the many servers that maintain the policy of removing and banning opposing viewpoints on sight. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with finding your preferred walled garden and savoring that environment.
But if Lemmy is just a collection of echo chambers, there won’t be any space for people to hash out their differences of opinion, and we will just become more isolated and out of touch. As the largest server in the network, I think it’s quite suitable for lemmy.world to explicitly advocate for a diversity of viewpoints, and I believe it will ultimately benefit the platform as a whole.
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.
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?
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/ could be a good fit for you
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.
I respectfully disagree with this policy change as debate communities have their place in allowing discourse on topics.
Because the one thing a vegan community (meant specifically for vegans) needs is carnists coming in to troll everyone into debating them, it’s just a little dissent that totally won’t turn the community into a hostile environment /s
Yeah. not every community needs to be a debate community. It’s perfectly fine for some communities to be fan communities where the expectation and intention is like-minded people discussing a shared interest or world view. Someone going into a “marijuana” community and saying “marijuana is bad” is just trolling, not engaging in some higher philosophical exercise.
I posted this in another thread but I also wanted to say it here so it’s more likely one of you will see it. I get the intention behind this, and I think it’s well intentioned, but it’s also definitely the wrong way to go about things. By lumping opposing viewpoints and misinformation together, all you end up doing is implying that having a difference in opinion on something more subjective is tantamount to spreading a proven lie, and lending credence to misinformation. A common tactic used to try and spread the influence of hate or misinformation is to present it as a “different opinion” and ask people to debate it. Doing so leads to others coming across the misinfo seeing responses that discuss it, and even if most of those are attempting to argue against it, it makes it seem like something that is a debatable opinion instead of an objective falsehood. Someone posting links to sources that show how being trans isn’t mental health issue for the 1000th time wont convince anyone that they’re wrong for believing so, but it will add another example of people arguing about an idea, making those without an opinion see the ideas as both equally worthy of consideration. Forcing moderators to engage in debate is the exact scenario people who post this sort of disguised hate would love.
Even if the person posting it genuinely believes the statement to be true, there are studies that show presenting someone with sources that refute something they hold as fact doesn’t get them to change their mind.
If the thread in question is actually subjective, then preventing moderators from removing just because they disagree is great. The goal of preventing overmodedation of dissenting opinions is extremely important. You cannot do so by equating them with blatent lies and hate though, as that will run counter to both goals this policy has in mind. Blurring the line between them like this will just make misinformation harder to spot, and disagreements easier to mistake as falsehoods.
A common tactic used to try and spread the influence of hate or misinformation is to present it as a “different opinion” and ask people to debate it.
Very good point
This policy to me seems as an attempt to sensibly resolve the power trip problem, but it appears a bit vague and there is still room for improvement. There are some communities where this makes sense but I think there are others where it does not. Moderators are volunteers and I think they should have a degree of discretion how they run the community. You’re the admin so do as you will, but may I suggest:
Where a one sided narrative is strictly being enforced that world admins don’t appreciate, would it be better to just move/rename that community to better reflect it? Such as moving the example community mod to a new community called “marijuana is bad”, to better reflect the variety of views the moderator is looking for? I know a pervasive issue is a single poster/moderator just posts and enforces a one-sided view, but perhaps the root of that issue is that the community’s name misleadingly looks to be a neutral place when it is not being run that way.
I say this because there are places that are not intended for neutral discussion and are meant to be more supportive of one group.
LGBTQ+ safe spaces are a prime example, but a different example about more trivial matters would be, say, Premier League football clubs.
If someone makes a Chelsea fan community, someone else coming in to say why Liverpool is better can be removed, as it should be more of a Chelsea echo chamber. Whereas in a Premier League community, blocking Liverpool posts and only allow Chelsea supportive posts would make sense to get admins involved to have it be more open and neutral.
Personally I think it would be better to enforce a policy of ensuring a community’s moderation matches the intent implied by the name of it. The policy as it stands feels heavy-handed on moderators.
I very much agree with this. Having single-viewpoint communities isn’t the problem. Sometimes that’s what people are looking for. It’s when that isn’t clear and/or the community is parked on a name that shouldn’t be single-viewpoint that there’s a problem.
[email protected] is about to get heated.
Im so ready for it.
I use qubes btw
Good fucking luck.
So c/world will start allowing all sources of news?
No? Is it necessary to go to terrible sources in order to make your point?
Who decides it’s a terrible source? Can’t we debate that? You’ve contradicted yourself almost immediately.
So they can remove content they disagree with?
I would be happy enough if its moderator stopped instigating and escalating conflict with individual community members.
Pretty sure I agree with the gist of this, and it’s welcome. My corner is small anyway, with not a lot of trolls and troublemakers, and I hope I’m already in line with this policy.
Well, unless I’m one of the mods who’ll “receive an immediate notice with a link to this new policy.”
FlyingSquid is known to violate this on /c/world
How? Genuinely curious. Their name is everywhere and I often see him discuss with people who disagree with him.
hes the best dont believe the disinformation about him a reliable source tells me he is NOT a zionist
