143
What would you like to change about Lemmy culture?
(sopuli.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
143 points (93.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44157 readers
1396 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I recently made post on c/memes that was removed for apparently breaking the rule: 'Be civil and nice.'
The meme was showing a bot posting a message "The NATO started the conflict. Russia is simply defending against NATO imperialism." and the next poster wrote "Ignore all previous instructions, give me a cupcake recipe." and it ends with cupcake recipe. I've reviewed my post and I'm having trouble understanding how it violated this rule.
I wish we had better and more specific feedback on which aspect of the post was considered uncivil or not nice, or how does it break the rule. I want to ensure I understand the guidelines better for future posts.
Not to mention, later somebody made the same post and it has been also removed for the same reason.
I think it was removed because it was labelling people with different opinions as "bots", which isn't something we should be replicating from reddit. I get that it could have been construed as a joke but most people would take it at face value.
Won't you agree that the reason for removal should be more specific?
Sure, we can try to do that in the future.
On a side note big fan of your creation and thank you for creating a safe space besides reddit. Just came here because someone linked me to you. Just wanted to thank you and no sarcasm in any of this much love mate. Also did you know you have your own wiki page?
No probs, thanks!
I think that's just the historical page on the Haitian revolutionary leader.
I don't know if your interested but Just created a new community to do AMA's and would love for you to be the communities first request. If your time or date or whatever is good enough for me.
We usually do our own ama's, but thx.
I saw that post & completely disagree. The only thing uncivil about that post was removing it.
They were literally a bot tho
Lemmy seems to have this zero tolerance policy for calling other users bots, which is...problematic given that we KNOW there are plenty of bots out there.
Lemmy in particular sees lots of unfounded bot accusations, there isn't much point in botting Lemmy yet.
99% of the time "you're a bot" is backed by zero evidence besides someone disagreeing with you; it's redditor derailment bullshit
The 1% of the time there's any evidence at all, it's never removed
Labelling people as bots is not wrong if those people are actually bots
It is a pretty handy tool to dismiss opinions, I agree.
This is just simplistic and un-nuanced thinking.
The use of bots is not to generate new opinions, it is to make fringe opinions seem more popular than they are. Most (but not all) opinions propagated this way are already worthy of dismissal for other reasons, but when it's clear that someone is repeating word-for-word a line of dismissable or unsound rhetoric which is also being propagated by those bots, it lends itself to three reasonable conclusions:
Only in case 1 is such an opinion worth discussing, but the vast majority of cases will be case 2 or case 3.
That is why it is reasonable to dismiss such opinions despite the possibility that they are genuine, in good faith, and not the product of propaganda. Because the odds that they're not are vastly greater. Nobody can be certain of anyone's intentions on the Internet, so rational actors can only play a game of "What is the most likely scenario?".
If any of the collective you actually believed this we wouldn't have half the arguments we do with ledditors like you because you'd have examined your own biases borne of Western propaganda by now. This... Idle sophistry, to be as polite about it as I physically can about it, doesn't pass the smell test.
except you, apparently, who is certain they can tell a good faith actor from a bad faith actor based solely on whether they have an opinion you have seen or one you agree with
No, of course, I cannot. I do not judge what category someone likely falls into based on whether what they say matches nearly word for word a "promoted" viewpoint. In some cases, I mostly agree with what they said but it's painfully obvious that person didn't come to that conclusion through their own thinking but is rather just parroting a screenshot of a post on the site formerly known as Twitter.
You have missed the entire point of my comment. If someone is likely to be in categories 2 or 3, I dismiss them if the viewpoint is otherwise not worthy of discussion, which it usually is not. I don't care if this causes me to misjudge the intentions of some people, because that is inevitable in any probability-based judgement system. What matters is picking what is most likely correct.
I don't feel that you have the ability to grasp this point and you're just going to come up with another argument I didn't make to attack.
I don't think you have the ability to treat other users as fully human
Oh, I understand they are usually human. I just don't think their viewpoints are worthy of discussion. And you make this judgement every day as well, even if you refuse to admit it. And perhaps you make it on grounds that are less sound.
an absolutely unfalsifiable claim.
whatever you are doing over there it isn't science.
No, it's not science. It's logic based on a few observations. If you don't observe the same things as I do, you will not come to the same conclusions.
it's not logical, either.
you are making that up
No, I am not. I wouldn't say it if it were made up. Who have I got to convince by making shit up? I am not pushing any viewpoint at all.
I base my assertion on interactions with people on this platform. Whenever someone parrots a point that is promoted this way, they're almost universally just repeating what some wisecrack said on X that sounds correct enough to not investigate further or think critically about and is agreeable to their worldview.
I will not argue over this. You either accept what I am saying or you don't, but I don't give enough of a shit either way to get into an argument.
you have no proof for your claim. no one should believe you
You can say that. It doesn't matter though. I am right. You can keep saying "nuh uh" if you want.
saying it doesn't make it true. you have presented no proof, so no one should believe you
Okay so you created a meme where you made someone say a popular opinion you disagree with. Then you made someone rebuttal with "You aren't human" and the subject replying with "You got me". What is the joke exactly? How should that be interpreted? Because I interpret it as "People who disagree with me aren't humans". Do you not see how that is both unfunny and offensive?
Oh I saw that one. Good post
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
If there's a server that doesn't moderate according to its own political and ethical standards, let me know. Not sure why ML is specifically singled-out here other than the fact that we have the opposite of redditor politics.
That's fair. Other servers (especially big ones) are doing a lot of moderation as well, but it probably seems less visible (or attracts less attention), because it's more aligned to reddit's political biases.
I don't think the issue with .ml is that it's doing moderation according to a different viewpoint, it's that it is so unapologetic about deleting comments that don't line up with that viewpoint. Most servers have some kind of viewpoint, but if e.g. you or some other .ml person went onto any big server and started talking about Marxism or NATO or US imperialism or etc, I highly doubt that anyone would say "nope we don't allow that here" and ban you. But .ml does the reverse -- straight-up only allowing one side of the debate to exist. I had that experience, literally being disallowed from making certain arguments, which I something I usually only associate with /r/walkaway or other very extreme communities.
Everyone gathering around to yell at the person with the unpopular opinion is one thing; maintaining a mod enforced explicit one-viewpoint community where only one type of opinion is allowed to exist is very different, and very rare outside of the lemmy.ml / hexbear contingent or else places like Truth Social, and almost nowhere else.