this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
209 points (94.1% liked)

Unpopular Opinion [Locked]

6453 readers
9 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Edit 2025-01-13: LW has indicated they will be clarifying these rules soon. In the mean time, the community will remain locked until those are updated and deemed acceptable.


So the LW Team put out an announcement on new, site-wide moderation policy (see post link). I've defended, to many a downvote, pretty much every major decision they've made, but I absolutely cannot defend this one. In short, mods are expected to counter pretty much every batshit claim rather than mod it as misinformation, trolling, attack on groups, etc.

My rebuttal (using my main account) to the announcement: https://dubvee.org/comment/3541322


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.

(emphases mine)

Me: 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"?

LW: 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


I understand what they're trying to address here (highly encourage you to read the linked post), but the way they're going about it is heavy handed and reeks of "both sides"-ing every community, removing agency from the community moderators who work like hell to keep these spaces safe and civil, and opening the floodgates for misinformation and "civil" hate speech. How this new policy fits with their Terms of Service is completely lost to me.

I'll leave the speculation as to whether Musk dropped LW a big check as an exercise to the reader.

For now, this community is going dark in protest and I encourage other communities who may disagree with this new policy to join. Again, I understand the problem that is trying to be addressed, but this new policy, as-written, is not the way to do it.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Just unlock it already, no one gives a shit about your drama with the admins. If you can't deal with it, move to another instance.

!unpopular@hilariouschaos.com Guess I'll switch to here. Better a dead community than one held hostage by some power mod.

[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Better a dead community than one held hostage by some power mod.

Ironically, that's probably unpopular

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 2 days ago

nice job OP genuinely appreciate your expression of discontent and it seems like it might be successful too

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 86 points 4 days ago

Your opinion seems valid. I’d be fine with leaving a flat earth post up, locked, with a comment that OP has turd brains.

The “different sides” argument is a fallacy. If 100 geologists say the planet is round, and one geologist says it’s flat, both sides don’t deserve equal amounts of space to discuss it.

[–] souperk@reddthat.com 46 points 4 days ago

What happended to "Don't feed the trolls"? I thought it's shared expirience that giving attention to trolls like that only gives them motivation to keep on going. Ignoring them is the only way to stop them from spamming.

[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 44 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well I suppose it's a good thing .world isn't the entirety of lemmy.

It is particularly egregious that they decided the flat earth thing was the example they were going to run with. We don't need to refute it every time a dunce brings it up and it's nobody's job to attempt educating the willfully ignorant. If the counter opinion is a thoroughly dead horse that's been beaten into paste, we collectively expect that to get downvoted and or moderated if it's actively harmful.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 55 points 4 days ago

As somebody running a cryptography forum elsewhere, if I was forced to accept lies that endanger people I'd rather shut down the forum instead.

I can imagine lots of other moderators in science and medical forums would hold the same opinion.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

"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."

It looks extremely reasonable to be honest

[–] WrittenInRed@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Holy shit this is such a bad policy lol. World is known for being too aggressive at deleting a lot of content they really shouldn't be deleting, but this policy really doesn't seem like it will improve that. The issue is most of the time if they want something removed they do so and then add a policy after to justify it, meaning that regardless of this rule people can't "advocate for violence", but they will be able to post misinformation and hate speech since apparently "LGBTQ people are mentally ill" hasn't been debunked enough elsewhere and a random comment chain in Lemmy is where it needs to be done. Never mind the actual harm those sorts of statements cause to individuals and the community at large.

All I can see this doing is any actual types of that get wrongly overly censored will still do so since the world admins believe they are justified in doing so, while other provably false information will be required to stay up since the admins believe the mods aren't justified in removing it.

This policy seems to only apply to actual misinformation too, not just subjective debates. So if there's a comment thread about whether violence is justified in protest would likely have one side removed, while I guess someone arguing that every trans person is a pedophile would be forced to stay up and be debated. Its like the exact opposite of how moderation should work lol.

[–] WrittenInRed@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Oh also something I just realized, they basically want to force mods to debate misinformation, which is literally a tatic used to spread disinformation in the first place. By getting people to debunk a ridiculous claim it lends credence to the idea as something worth discussing and also spreads it to more people. I feel like the intentions behind this are noble, but it's been proven that presenting evidence doesn't really get people to change their opinion all that often. The whole thing is super misguided.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Move the community to a different Instance?

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (10 children)

It's an option, sure. But (at this point anyway) it's more about making a statement and trying to bring visibility to the horrible side effects of this new policy.

I'm not trying to burn bridges, lol, merely shine a light and hope the LW Team sees it.

They've made some... curious decisions in the past which diminish my faith in their ability to navigate this one.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think the policy is too heavy-handed. Forget who's right and wrong, keeping a discussion topical to the post is really helpful to help the community grow.

On a more practical level, enforcing this at the admin level is going to require a lot more oversight and work from the administrators.

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

It definitely does not seem like a well thought out solution for sure.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah I decided to move off of lemmy.world recently. Seems like they've been making a lot of bad decisions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 10 points 3 days ago

I was waiting for something like this to happen. I'm not surprised it happened to world, mainly because it ended up as default.

[–] asudox@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 days ago (14 children)

Why not just migrate to another instance? Have you forgotten that we are in the fediverse? This is a good opportunity to move communities to other instances.

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I explained that in another comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/14408131

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 2 days ago

They're literally just asking mods to wield their power like a surgical scalpel and not a cudgel and actually do more than see a triggering keyword or phrase and instantly dropping the ban hammer based on a knee-jerk reaction.

Someone who is misinformed saying something that is incorrect doesn't mean they should be banned for spreading misinformation. There has to be intent behind it.

Someone saying they wish so and so would drop dead shouldn't instantly warrant a ban for "inviting violence" if it's not an actual, credible, serious call for organized violence.

I don't really expect that shit to change, regardless. Most people who create a community, volunteer to moderate or even administrate a whole ass server, do so because they want to set the rules and run things their way.

[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@admiralpatrick@lemmy.world , seems like the LW admins changed their decision: https://lemmy.world/post/24135976

There will be a new announcement soon to clarify.

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's good news (hopefully). Thanks!

Will keep an eye out, but community is remaining locked until the clarifications are published and deemed acceptable.

[–] Blaze@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

Sounds good!

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Am I missing something or is this policy change to combat the tankie mods who are just banning left and right for anything that doesn't match the tankie narrative?

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

As I understand it, yes, that is the intent of the policy. However, as-written and presumably as it is to be enforced for all mods LW-wide, it has wide-reaching implications with worse side-effects.

Basically, the proper tool is a scalpel and they brought out a machete.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

I get where you're coming from. I'm curious to see how all this plays out.

A user in one of my communities raised this salient point:

https://lemmy.world/comment/14406565

I will say, if Musk dropped a check, I never saw it. :)

[–] admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago

That's basically the long-form of how I feel about it. Honestly, I was having a hard time staying composed while I responded to the announcement thread; I was livid and absolutely shaking.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Man, that's ridiculous. Requiring mods to have to do deep research in order to rebut every single ridiculous claim is not how forum moderation has ever worked.

Why? Because no forum moderator is going to do that.

This would only be fair if the admins had to produce sufficient documentation to show that the ridiculous claim is true, thereby justifying action against a mod who failed to produce their documentation.

It's documentation all the way down.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 days ago

It would just end up with a series of blog posts (because who's going to keep writing the same thing over and over) and people being dismissed with a collection of links, which both means the asshat and other bypassing readers won't read the linked content but everybody still sees the bullshit

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›