27
Whats going on over in the unpopular opinion lemmy?
(lemmy.world)
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 12 Jan 2025
27 points (93.5% liked)
Ask Lemmy
33253 readers
665 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tankie mods on world are criticized for being too tankie in moderation.
Admins try to address this by forcing mods to argue instead of immediately ban if something is posted against their beliefs.
A non-tankie mod thinks it is bullshit that they have to engage in every online argument in good faith and takes their subs (I know this isn't the official term but it communicates the idea) dark in protest.
While I don't agree with the 'tankie' rhetoric (it's been thrown around so much that word has no meaning here), mod abuse has definitely gotten out of control across most online communities.
It's opening up an opportunity for communities that don't tolerate mod abuse to flourish.
The mods only have themselves to blame. Hopefully these new communities won't repeat the same mistakes.
It is going to be a learning experience for mods and admins on Lemmy. It took years for Reddit to cobble together a governance structure and, even then, it was really bad. I haven't seen the devs take any stance on building tools to help and we've seen a lot of cases where mod abuse have been defended by admins.
This seems to be a first stab at admins taking a proactive approach to mod abuse. It is a bad policy, but at least they seem like they are trying to do something.
Agreed.
Why are right wingers the only ones who ever try to devalue the meaning of words?
If they don't like being called tankies or nazis they are free to chage their beleifs, same as you if you feel like you are being grouped in for your beliefs.
How is tankism(???) Related to flat earthers?
Anti intellectualism
One Belives the shape of the earth is a lie, and all governments on earth collaborate to keep the lie alive, the other wants everyone's needs to be met
Tankies want to put minorities in camps as a distraction from real policy while they give money to rich people.
At least that's what all the politicians they support want.
Im sure all their supporters aren't that malicious, but that's who they vote for.
Oh I understand. You just don't know what words mean.
You are absolutely tripping if you think anyone wants that.
Who do tankies vote for exactly?
Bro tf
This shows you clearly don’t understand what was implied by what was said. “Flat earth” is a placeholder term to imply “random nonsense conspiracy theory.” Nothing more.
The idea is that instead of instant removal/ban, we are encouraged to debate and draw out through discussion, the reason why it’s bullshit.
I’ll agree that the change suggested is a bit confusing in it’s wording, but simultaneously, it was also misinterpreted by knee-jerk reactionaries to mean what they needed it to mean to result in the outrage they crave.
I agree with this, as long as lines are drawn at the kind of conspiracy theories of “homosexuality is a mental illness”, and the like. I want to make a point that this would pertain to memes as well.
This is the time to draw clear lines, because we are deciding the tone/direction of one of the largest instance in Lemmy.
With the timing being suspiciously close to Meta’s clearly bigoted “relaxation” of the mod rules, this brings with it a bad feel, but let’s remember, the fediverse is just growing and taking shape, so this was inevitable (and many of us have been watching it unfold). But we have to remember that we shape it, unlike the corporate shit we left. Make your voices heard.
Edit:
I made this change because I believe banning things that are subjective quashes debate.
Well said and agreed.
What I understand is the new rules are to force us to deal with random nonsense conspiracy theories. We are encouraged to have drawn out discussions with concern trolls who should just get banned. Do you have any idea how long a troll can draw out a discussion while still remaining polite? It's fun for them to make us patiently explain to them that the Earth is round.
You’re not being encouraged to have drawn out discussions with trolls. WE (mods) are encouraged to not insta-ban or knee-jerk remove content just because it might lie within a grey area of what we consider trolling, like other instances do from time to time. If someone is blatantly trolling, which is usually obvious- we remove the content, but if not and it’s just an unpopular opinion/conspiracy theory, the idea is that it should remain and be debated with facts and shut down via discourse rather than a heavy hand.
Also.. This is not an all encompassing be-all-end-all rule. It’s nuanced. VERY nuanced. Again, no one is forcing you to have to deal with nonsense. You also have the option to not react to people you believe is trolling in bad faith, and report them if you feel they are brewing the rules.
Hope this clears some of it up.
Leaving more power in the user’s control- you decide a user is a troll and the mods don’t see it that way, you block them and anyone who does want to see them has the option.
It sounds like it means users are forced to interact with shitty content because the mods won't remove it.
Sounds like ≠ is. Which is why I tried explaining it better.
The admins demand that stupid conspiracy theories be allowed a platform. They shouldn't be. They make the user experience worse. No one wants to deal with annoying nonsense from morons, it makes dissensions a drag. This is a growth-at-all-costs move by the admins which is only going to make .world worse. And for what? Who does this help? Certainly not normal users who don't want to listen to conspiracy theories or have them pollute their feeds.
I'm trying to be polite to the admins because evidently they care more about that then the user experience, but this is a terrible move and will not help .world at all and I have absolutely no idea why you're defending it.
Yeah, this proves my point.
I'm not a tankie, nor am I a right-winger.