this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
244 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19132 readers
4050 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's the consensus from the admins and mods. They have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not a TOS violation.
They constantly troll anyone who responds to them. It’s sheer flame bait with every comment.
All of the posts and comments that user makes are universally Down voted, and pretty much everyone here hates this user. Why on earth you won’t ban them permanently is beyond any of us.
I appreciate that you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s obvious that they’re main goal is to provoke Arguments. Pretty much everyone in the affected communities, like news and politics, can’t stand the person. Nobody wants them there.
Please permanently ban them, at least from those communities.
I think this is balanced and fair. I don't think they demonstrated any supremely shitty opinions, i.e. racism, bigotry, but their presence was incredibly annoying and they didn't really participate in useful conversations and moreso used the reply box as a soapbox to say a lot of nonsense.
Moreover, I think banning until the election shows an understanding and restraint by the administration team that is commendable.
Yeah, the typical line crossers, racism, bigotry, hatred, genocide denial, etc. get you on the fast track to a ban and they avoided all of that.
....intentionally.
That's why moderation sometimes requires judgment calls. When someone is intentionally avoiding whatever the moderation cut off seems to be, then it's clear their participation is intentionally as provocative as possible without triggering enforcement. In that case it's the user playing the mod team against the rest of the community because they know your boundaries and can weaponize them to "win."
I think it's troublesome that there's more firm enforcement against any kind of "denialism" and "bigotry" than there is for demonstrably antagonistic behavior. Lemmy is veering too strongly toward curating a list of acceptable opinions and too far away from enforcing civility standards, if you ask me. That's a surefire way to create an ironclad left-leaning echo chamber.
Genocide denialism and bigotry are WAY worse than just being uncivil. I'm fine with a chamber that doesn't allow bigotry. If you think that makes it left-leaning, that says a lot more about the right than "free speech".
My point is they shouldn't allow either. The only thing worse is using a double standard, because it prioritizes assholes you agree with over polite users you don't.
There's no hypocrisy in saying worse things are worse. That's not a double standard. Bigotry isn't an "opinion" and assholes of any stripe are better than people who engage in it. A lot of the people talking to Monk were assholes (that the majority agreed with), but I don't get the impression you wish moderation had been stricter on them.
I challenge that the definition of "bigotry" is as broad as each individual wants to make it, and the kit gloves with which trollish behavior is consistently moderated differ significantly from the approach taken to a very broad definition of "bigoted" opinions, which regularly invite heavy reprimands. As long as the definition of "bigotry" is rigorously defined, I don't necessarily disagree with you. As I see things, it isn't.
And yes, much of this could have been avoided if the people attacking Monk had been held to a higher standard of acceptable behavior. That is exactly the argument I'm making. None of that crap should have been allowed to spiral out of control.
I would argue exactly the opposite.
First of all, fuck "civility" rules, which in my experience (back on Reddit) tend to result in polite bad faith comments (sealioning etc.) being tolerated while comments calling out bad faith for the toxic behavior it is get removed.
Second, facts are not opinions, and it's hardly Lemmy's fault if Colbert was correct about reality's bias.
You're commenting on a thread about a user whose polite, bad faith sealioning was tolerated for months, and whose spamming behavior is the only thing that triggered meaningful enforcement. If that's what you're concerned about, you should be in favor of more heavy handed moderation of obviously disingenuous "politeness".
I think sealioning is patently uncivil behavior, no matter the veneer of geniality. I just think that Lemmy hasn't quite figured out how to strike a balance between moderators enforcing truth and moderators enforcing good behavior.
Well, it's always been left leaning, look at .ml ;)
And decisions to take a more punitive approach to the expression of certain opinions and beliefs than to shitty, antagonistic behavior will ensure that never changes.
Good cause I’d be gone already