-24
Union boss ignored university’s request to change polarising speech
(www.theage.com.au)
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 22 Oct 2024
-24 points (16.7% liked)
World News
39153 readers
1980 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In fact, I could easily be missing additional context. I've always said I'm open to new evidence and changing my mind and opinion on that basis.
That's probably it. I haven't really put in the time and effort to follow this user around, see what he was posting in his own communities, etc.
That I saw and responded to. For the record, I stated that
That being the case, let's dig in to see where between the two of us, where we actually disagree.
I hope you can see the contradiction between your two statements. User was banned because of harassing DMs as per the modlog you referenced, https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=9454261
In fact this is an example of context that I can't see. For whatever reason that user didn't bother with me so I was unaware of this until folks starting mentioning it happening in the post reporting the first ban. I definitely agree that this is inappropriate and permaban worthy.
Again, for the record, the opinion that I took issue with was that evidence showed this was a bot account or a shared account. I can't rule out that this is in fact the case, but I still don't see the evidence for it. Instead, it looks to me that this was a guy who got a permaban because he was too much of a jerk and couldn't be civil, leading him to eventually cross the line and break the TOS.
To me it seems the two bans were done by different folks (mods of a magazine vs admins of the instance) and had different reasons and evidence (temp ban in a magazine for duplicate post rule violation - for which your script, in identifying duplicates, would have been extremely helpful - vs permaban on the instance for violations in DMs - for which only the instance admins could confirm and verify).
I'll point out again, the explanation did not reference https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#bot-usage-and-guidelines suggesting that the admins did not think the user was a bot account.
Also worth repeating: I don't disagree with either ban (though with the DMs I don't have the knowledge or context, but I'm good with trusting the instance admins of lemmy.world in this case). I just believe the reasoning is different.
That again dives into the context that I didn't have, like the DMs.
From what little I did see, I agreed with https://lemm.ee/post/45466523/15630878
Which doesn't justify it, but also explains why I've interacted a lot with that user and only once felt trolled. The user tried to be a mirror and reflect back what was given. Which is not appropriate social behaviour, but if we're banning a user for that reason, we should be open about it.
Also I agreed with https://lemm.ee/post/45466523/15631367
Now, I don't mind if /m/politics becomes /c/democrats - I'm a lifelong democrat myself. But I also feel we should be open about these things. I shouldn't be banned from /m/conservatives because of a hidden rule that I wasn't not liberal enough in loving a universal basic income, for example.
Yeah this a wall of text. To be honest I can't really spend my already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone who ignores relevant points I raise.
In this case, I addressed the ban reason given, and yet you try to argue more about it as though I didn't. If you cared about more than disputing me, you might see that this was probably death by a million paper cuts.
TLDR to save you from a wall of text - we seem to agree on at least 99% and I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing about anymore.
Yes, I can easily see that being the case for that user.
False premise? If you read it you'd have seen that I did not ignore those points but either agreed with or responded to each of them. Edit: So, while I certainly have no right to tell you what you should do with your time, perhaps it's still possible that you can find a way to spend your "already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone [who acknowledges] relevant points" that you raised.
So this is a bit odd. I disagreed with Monk on a lot, but I never felt that his responses to me ever became uncordial.
Between you and me, it sounds like we maybe agree on 95% or 99% of the points. And yet, somehow this convo seems to be the one taking a more unfriendly turn.
Anyways, I wasn't arguing about the ban reason but attempting clarify that I was speaking against one particular thing w/o disagreeing with the rest.
Sorry, I have a second wall of text you'd have to read. But in that I list out a lot of the different things I care about, and also the why.
Edit: I guess one might also ask why I spent so much time discussing this with you. Well, in fact, you're exactly the type of person that the fediverse needs to be encouraging. Your script was useful, and I'm sure you'll come up with many more greater and brilliant things as you spend more time on the fediverse. Basically, the fediverse needs you and more folks like you, so I was trying to turn around an engagement that might have started off the wrong foot around into a more positive one.