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.
Then used the example “you should allow flat earthers to hold weight or you’re just doing a echo chamber”
We’re aware that this policy is going to be subjective. It won’t be popular in all instances. 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. One sentence that doesn’t jive with the overall narrative should be easily countered or ignored.
Best was was they walked it back but never clarified
There will be a new announcement soon to clarify.
Edit. Oh right forgot it was one way they were trying to use these rules to counter ml and pro Palestinian content/comments
The purpose is to allow pinholes through echo chambers with the idea that the odd antivax comment is easier to deal with than the odd “Russia is waging a war of aggression” comment in a pro-Russia community.
One of those stances requires a black box with other ideas kept out or it collapses. That has recently been done with heavy, heavy moderation banning large numbers of people. That’s the kind of moderation we’re looking to rein in.
I’ve focused on the most controversial examples, because to some people (if they’re acting genuinely), that’s what it might look like to them. If you want a flat earth community, that’s fine, as long as you allow people to call it out as a joke once in a while.
The purpose is to encourage discussion where it’s most needed, usually where moderators are preventing it.
Dasus
If you want a flat earth community, that’s fine, as long as you allow people to call it out as a joke once in a while.
That would be fine, because Flat Earth is a joke and that’s true. It would also be fine to mod it out if they want to have a community of loonies.
But you’re saying you will forcefully make sure that astronomy communities accept flat Earth, medical communities accept antivaxxing and drinking bleach for covid?
Have a think about this again ffs. And do it after you’ve come down from whatever you’ve been smoking.
2nd edit, I regret looking more at their account again. So much being angrier at people dissatisfied with dnc and daring to criticize it than what is actually happening, then so much Israeli talking points when people bring up Israeli war crimes 🤮
The marketplace of ideas framework has done so much damage to society. If an idea is by all ability to determine illegitimate (e.g. flat earth), you still need to have ways to challenge that ruling just as a procedural issue for scientific inquiry, but you do not need to let people repeating the same bullshit arguments do so at all, and in fact it is basically just as important to stamp them out of your spaces.
https://lemmy.world/post/24135976?scrollToComments=true
Then used the example “you should allow flat earthers to hold weight or you’re just doing a echo chamber”
Best was was they walked it back but never clarified
Edit. Oh right forgot it was one way they were trying to use these rules to counter ml and pro Palestinian content/comments
https://lemmy.world/post/24135976/14436261?sort=Controversial
The purpose is to allow pinholes through echo chambers with the idea that the odd antivax comment is easier to deal with than the odd “Russia is waging a war of aggression” comment in a pro-Russia community.
One of those stances requires a black box with other ideas kept out or it collapses. That has recently been done with heavy, heavy moderation banning large numbers of people. That’s the kind of moderation we’re looking to rein in.
I’ve focused on the most controversial examples, because to some people (if they’re acting genuinely), that’s what it might look like to them. If you want a flat earth community, that’s fine, as long as you allow people to call it out as a joke once in a while.
The purpose is to encourage discussion where it’s most needed, usually where moderators are preventing it.
2nd edit, I regret looking more at their account again. So much being angrier at people dissatisfied with dnc and daring to criticize it than what is actually happening, then so much Israeli talking points when people bring up Israeli war crimes 🤮
Absolute nerd shit. Imagine making this your hobby
Hobby, right.
Idk which one would be preferable at this point (for that account/lw in general)
The marketplace of ideas framework has done so much damage to society. If an idea is by all ability to determine illegitimate (e.g. flat earth), you still need to have ways to challenge that ruling just as a procedural issue for scientific inquiry, but you do not need to let people repeating the same bullshit arguments do so at all, and in fact it is basically just as important to stamp them out of your spaces.