147
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 31 Jul 2023
147 points (85.5% liked)
Meta (lemm.ee)
3473 readers
15 users here now
lemm.ee Meta
This is a community for discussion about this particular Lemmy instance.
News and updates about lemm.ee will be posted here, so if that's something that interests you, make sure to subscribe!
Rules:
- Support requests belong in !support
- Only posts about topics directly related to lemm.ee are allowed
- If you don't have anything constructive to add, then do not post/comment here. Low effort memes, trolling, etc is not allowed.
- If you are from another instance, you may participate in discussions, but remain respectful. Realize that your comments will inevitably be associated with your instance by many lemm.ee users.
If you're a Discord user, you can also join our Discord server: https://discord.gg/XM9nZwUn9K
Discord is only a back-up channel, !meta@lemm.ee will always be the main place for lemm.ee communications.
If you need help with anything, please post in !support instead.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm also not advocating for killing trolls that bother me... so take care not to belabor a quick metaphor.
The vast majority of disinformation comes in a few key topics related to current hot button political issues and is generally pushed by recognizable sources. It's not unreasonable to expect admins to check into user reports of disinformation and organized trolling against known sources. I'm not an admin so I'm not going to write up the specific criteria right here and now.
Choosing not to do so is also a conscious choice to host such content.
Hey, it’s okay to break down a metaphor if I don’t think it’s applicable to the conversation.
Yes, totally I agree with you, I think admins should review reported content and do some investigation if needed.
I guess I have a problem with removing users and communities based on someone’s opinion of the content itself. Vote manipulation, brigading, creating multiple accounts to push agenda, repeated automated posting, and even organized trolling like you mentioned are not direct opinions on the content posted. They are clearly defined and relatively easy to identify. “Disinformation,” “recognizable sources,” and “hot button political issues” are direct opinions about the content or subject of a post or community. They are not clearly defined and differ greatly from person to person.
I asked you to suggest a definition or criteria of disinformation to move us from the “what” to the “how.” Thinking about how this might be regulated practically might help you understand why I think it’s problematic to remove users and communities based solely on someone’s opinion of their content.
Believe me I do understand why it could be considered problematic. My disagreement stems from the idea that it's better to have no policy rather than an imperfect policy or one that relies on some discretion.
My point in highlighting that disinformation centers around a few hot button issues is to reinforce that we're not talking about some nebulous or opinion-driven debate; rather there are a few key disinformation strategies that take advantage of the "bullshit asymmetry" to poison real discussion. They are easily identified because they are well documented and reported on.
I'm simply unconvinced by arguments that it's too hard to identify and nip such malicious communities in the bud. Even less so by arguments that doing so is somehow a slippery slope.