There will be a new announcement soon to clarify.

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.

Humans are naturally inclined to believe a single narrative when they’re only presented with a single narrative. That’s the basis of how fiction works. You can’t tell someone a story if they’re questioning every paragraph. However, a well placed sentence questioning that narrative gives the reader the option to chose. They’re no longer in a story being told by one author, and they’re free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.

Unfortunately, some malicious actors are hijacking this natural tendency to be invested in fiction, and they’re using it to create absurd, cult-like trends in non-fiction. They’re using this for various nefarious ends, to turn us against each other, to generate profit, and to affect politics both domestically and internationally.

In a fully anonymous social media platform, we can’t counter this fully. But we can prune some of the most egregious echo chambers.

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.

It’s harder to just dismiss that comment if it’s interrupting your fictional story that’s pretending to be real. “The moon is upside down in Australia” does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than “Nobody has crossed the ice wall” does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.

A user should be able to (respectfully, infrequently) post/comment about a study showing marijuana is a gateway drug to !marijuana without moderation tools being used to censor that content.

Of course this isn’t about marijuana. There’s a small handful of self-selected moderators who are very transparently looking to push their particular narrative. And they don’t want to allow discussion. They want to function as propaganda and an incubator. Our goal is to allow a few pinholes of light into the Truman show they wish to create. When those users’ pinholes are systematically shut down, we as admins can directly fix the issue.

We don’t expect this policy to be perfect. Admins are not aware of everything that happens on our instances and don’t expect to be. This is a tool that allows us to trim the most extreme of our communities and guide them to something more reasonable. This policy is the board that we point to when we see something obscene on [email protected] so that we can actually do something about it without being too authoritarian ourselves. We want to enable our users to counter the absolute BS, and be able to step in when self-selected moderators silence those reasonable people.

Some communities will receive an immediate notice with a link to this new policy. The most egregious communities will comply, or their moderators will be removed from those communities.

Moderators, if someone is responding to many root comments in every thread, that’s not “in a smaller proportion” and you’re free to do what you like about that. If their “counter” narrative posts are making up half of the posts to your community, you’re free to address that. If they’re belligerent or rude, of course you know what to do. If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.

  • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I appreciate everything the .world admins do. As a mod of a community here, I also agree with the general concept of letting the community downvote posts that aren’t actually harmful in terms of hate/abuse. That being said, I think it would be wise to reformulate and reduce down this post to a straightforward announcement: what events precipitated this policy change, what are going to be permitted kinds of content, and what is not allowed. This post is just a kind of wandering philosophy right now.

  • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    they’re free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.

    This just translates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean or “reversion to mediocrity”. Much like 🤬🤬🤬🤬it’s /all, every time that mainstream spills into a community it ruins it and brings it closer to the mainstream.

    In biology, you may recognize some of these phenomena from biochemistry: osmosis and diffusion. The demand to disable the “semi-permeable membrane” ends the purpose of the compartment.

    Either the invading posts/comments get removed or the influx of participants (including voting) has to be rationed somehow. Doing neither is not a discussion about narratives, it’s a mobbing. It’s the opposite of promoting discourse, as that setup heavily favors the “mainstream” narrative, the status quo.

    I should mention that I’ve been a moderator of internet communities since before Web 2.0 and I find the moderation tools for Lemmy type platforms to be terrible. If the expectation is to not have practical moderation, but instead to separate into fedi-islands and block the problematic networks, well, that would be a very blunt way to get to the same goals. Instead of having moderators individually ban users, you have admins ban entire networks of users.

    There is no getting away from the need for moderators. Musk proved that again since he took over Twitter. Zuckerberg is proving it again now. You’re not building a protopia by hampering moderation, you’re building a cyber-wasteland. Any success with that will be temporary, like a pump and dump: you get a period of growth and a honeymoon, and then the critical mass of assholes is achieved and they turn everything to shit, and then most users have to start searching for greener pastures food forests to migrate to. Another term for that is unsustainable, it can’t last.

    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.

    Rationality is much more complex than you think. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic should’ve taught you that already, first hand. The simple model of persuasion by presenting reasonable arguments and evidence is wrong. There’s an entire field looking into cognitive biases that show how irrational humans are. How exactly do you plan to argue with people who believe in “alternative facts” and “post-truth”?

    All I see in the article you posted is a lack of experience in dealing with bullshit, a lack of understanding of the viral or memetic nature of bullshit.

    It’s harder to just dismiss that comment if it’s interrupting your fictional story that’s pretending to be real. “The moon is upside down in Australia” does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than “Nobody has crossed the ice wall” does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.

    It’s disheartening that you haven’t learned yet that flateartherism is a variant of creationism, another religiously inspired pseudoscience.

    • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well said the majority will often want to oppress the minority.

      The phrase “common sense” is flawed as the majority have been wrong about certain topics in the past like lobotomies being used to “correct problematic behaviour”.

    • CTDummy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh hey, it’s the coward that post inflammatory shit and bans anyone who disagrees with them even if even toned. Shocked you have a problem with this policy. Shocked.

  • splinter@hilariouschaos.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is refreshing to see, good on you for daring to do this. There is no reason to fear respectful debate in the absence of an agenda.

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s really easy to disguise a campaign to wear out moderators as respectful debate, e.g. by sealioning, especially if you’re not working alone. The new rules don’t have any provision to distinguish between respectful debate and bad-faith posts, so it’s not unreasonable to worry that this change will do a lot more to promote bad-faith ‘debate’ than respectful debate.

      • splinter@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree that it’s a difficult balancing act. Overall though, the role of a moderator is to facilitate conversation in accordance to the rules, not enforce their own narrative on the community. These steps are not perfect, but they are an attempt to try and get moderators to moderate more and dictate less.

  • DxK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Elon, Zuckerberg, whatever weirdos run Lemmy.world. The toadies are all lining up for Trump’s new world order, huh? Way to highlight the potential weak points of the fediverse when a server’s admins decide to jump on the big tech trend of forcing mods and users to accept disinformation cluttering their feed as if it’s equal to facts so long as it’s written politely. At least we know who’s the asshole at those companies. You sycophants are faceless.

    This is my last post on this username. And I’ll never subscribe to another Lemmy.world community again. This server can no longer be trusted. At this point you people might as well just make spez an admin. Your administrative goals are in sync. Even your jargon like “respectful dissent™” is just a repackaging of Reddit’s “valuable discussion™“ excuse for allowing disinformation on their platform.

    • DefectiveFoundation@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wouldn’t this also do the opposite? prevent a sub like the_donald or lemmygrad from just banning everyone they don’t like? Did this place have professional fact checkers before?

      • Blaze (he/him)@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You can ban the_donald for attacks on people or groups, same for lemmygrad. Having flat earthers in every community is a parallel matter.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Having left Lemmy world myself, the communities aren’t at fault. Hopefully people will find a better instance. There are quite a few out there.

  • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Let’s say every community allows one lunatic post. It’s downvoted to hell and thoroughly refuted in the comments.

    Every time someone tries to say the same thing again under a different post, the comment gets a reply “[lunatic opinion] was refuted under [lunatic post link] - you may comment there” and then the stray lunatic comment is removed. Only the reply stays to inform other lunatics. Other comments saying the same lunatic opinion again are removed, because the canonical reply linking the canonical lunatic post is already in the comments. All discussion about the lunatic opinion will be contained under the canonical lunatic post.

    Would this work?

  • Acemod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We are already seeing the fallout from this as there is a right wing chud spewing all sorts of half truths, hate speech and misinformation. @[email protected] is gonna tank your credibility.

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s something that everyone should keep in mind with this announcement. Due to the nature of federation and the fediverse, it can ONLY apply to lemmy.world. Users and communities on other instances can, do, and will continue to have their own policies on the matter.

    Expect the tankie and fascist instances to keep doing tankie and fascist shit, and very little has changed in that regard. They still have the same risk of defederation, even if the chances have inched up slightly.

  • simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

    So basically you’re saying people should be allowed to post blatant false information and everybody should try their best to tell them they’re wrong rather than doing the sensible thing of stopping false information spreading in the first place.

    People who would post that stuff would never argue with good intentions and would often argue in bad faith. What you’re suggesting trolling should be allowed, moderators and community members need to waste their time engaging with controversial content nobody wants to see, and threads will have even more people fighting in them. Who decides when wrong info and propaganda posts are allowed to be removed? LW admins? You won’t be able to keep up and are guaranteed to incite distrust in your community either way.

    I’m with reducing echo chambers and taking action on bad moderators that abuse their positions, but making the blanket statement that basically translates to “flat earthers are now welcome here whether you like it or not, get ready to see posts unironically arguing about why flat earth is right in your feed” surely can ring some bells on why this is a bad idea.

    This is like the third time LW tried to be front-and-center in deciding how conversations should happen on Lemmy. You are the most popular Lemmy instance and most content is on your instance. This isn’t an experimental safe space instance to dictate how social media should work. Please understand that any weirdly aggressive stances you take affects everyone.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments.

    In general I would agree, but if the community moderators decides to set some ground truths (aka an echo chamber), I don’t think the admins should be involved.

    Allowing these posts and comment despite these agreed upon ground truths (ex: the earth is round, vaccine works, eating animals is unethical, etc) is only going to generate noise by having to refute these again and again instead of fostering productive discussions.

    I say let the communities handle their own affairs, and the admins should only intervene in severe cases.

  • Krudler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Straight up bullshit and a completely half-baked, ill-considered, ill-conceived idea. Completely disconnected from reality.