Hello everyone! If you have not yet seen it, @ernest has handed over moderation to @Drusas @Entropywins @ Frog-Brawler (the tag system consistently messes up the link to FB’s username lol) and myself here in !politics.
First order of business is for you all to weigh in on the community guidelines that you would like to see here. As the mod team, we will weigh all suggestions and then add them to the side bar as magazine/community rules. I’m going to give about 48 hours for users to see this thread and add a comment or discuss.
Please know that the goal is not to create an echo chamber here in !politics, but we want to ensure that there is not an encroachment of rage bait and toxicity. It brings down the quality of the magazine and it discourages community engagement.
For the time being, the mod tools are pretty sparse, so I want to manage expectations about the scope of moderation we’re able to do right now. For now, our touch will be light. Expect increased functionality as time progresses, though. We have 3 weeks of reports on file, so please know we see them. Give us some time to establish how to handle those before you start to see any movement.
One type of story (that I can’t find any good examples of here, so that’s good!) that I don’t like is the hearsay or expert-says types of stories. e.g., former-ex-prosecutor-political-insider says Trump definitely did something bad and will be charged next week.
It’s not real news masquerading as news for clicks and there’s nothing new or real to discuss in the comments.
“so-and-so slams so-and-so”-type articles are usually like this, too. It’s just political bickering and doesn’t contain any new points of discussion. Any comments on these articles is often just more attacking, since that’s where the discussion started from.
I realize these are probably quite difficult to identify and moderate objectively, but I think the community would be better off without them!
This one will be challenging, but we will consider it. Thanks for weighing in though. Even if this doesn’t become a direct rule, it at least points to the kind of community we want to co-create.
Could it be geared to allow content around editorialized content from news sources (e.g. NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, etc.)? Maybe a comment that says sensationalized content/clickbait will not be allowed.
Sadly the Op-Ed section of otherwise respectable news sources are the most contrived and toxic links that get circulated.
I’d strongly prefer submissions be focused on factual reporting as much as possible. I’d also want submitters to un-clickbait titles when necessary.
I can definitely get behind that. Most of the political anger is setup with this pot stirring he said she said shit. Granted, there still is a place for some of the puffery “I’m going to pass a law to do X” even though it may or may not happen. A lot of them can be total bullshit, like hopelessly unpopular laws being put into consideration that have no hope of even getting to vote, let alone passing. But at least that is real politics rather than the simple shit slinging of editorial content today.
To start, I would like to link this graphic to the community guidelines to illustrate where the cutoff is between heated debate and inappropriate bickering.
If it were up to be, I’d draw the line at Contradiction, if you’re trying to cultivate a serious magazine for thinkers.
What’s the line you’d draw if I’m trying to cultivate a clown college magazine for trolls? Hehehe (saaaarcasm)
My first question is always going to be, what is the moderation policy for Nazi’s/white supremacists/fascists?
Are you adopting a zero tolerance policy for that sort of rabble rousing trash, the iamragesparkle method, or are you going to say your hands are tied unless they blatantly violate the community guidelines?
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”
And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
This sort of question is why this thread was created. I’m in favor of a zero tolerance policy for fascism, bigotry, and anything that is clearly misinformation. But that’s my personal opinion and we’ll all be working together to decide on what the community wants and what works best. Rules can also be altered as we grow, of course, if our initial guidelines aren’t sufficient.
Obviously I’m 100% in the camp of “you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
Sadly I joined this conversation late, so we will see if others filter in.
I’m very curious as to what sort of community the fedaverse as a whole has cultivated after the reddit exodus.
I don’t disagree, based on the harm that is being done. You may see me comment in that regard, but if moderation rules end up being more lenient than I am personally, based on feedback, that’s what I’ll do as a moderator. It’s about what the community wants and needs in order for genuine discussion to thrive.
I have seen enough users actively combat alt-right content here that I’m happy to swing the ban hammer on neo-Nazi and pro-white supremacy content.
What I don’t want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.
I say this with all sincerity: as a progressive, we need genuine and legitimate leadership to step up and start governing again in the GOP. We don’t need people who were once too awful to embrace getting a redemption arc (a la Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney style), but real and serious political leaders. I would like this magazine to be a place to stay informed about the moves and leadership on the right that are worth building bridges with.
And as much as I hate the entire MAGA crowd, we still need to be informed of their movements and goings on. So I’m not willing to draw the line at no right wing content from right wing sources ever. But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.
I’m for a fair amount of leniency when everyone is being civil, but the line needs to be a bit left of card carrying Nazi.
Anyone advocating against human rights should be banned, because such debates are not fruitful. For example, some of the rhetoric around exterminating the homeless in Fox news has no place here.
Fwiw, I think the fediverse gives bans far less weight. A safe and informative community with a range of opinions on how to improve things should be the goal, and mods should be bam happy to get there.
What I don’t want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.
I’m confused.
Do you think I was asking for that?
If so, why?
But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.
We seem to be in the same ballpark, I just use stronger language about it.
I didn’t think you were asking for an echo chamber. I added that information to add some transparency so that members of this community may understand more on my perspective and get to know my philosophy a bit more. I wasn’t reacting directly to you by saying that.
I want to be sensitive to outside perspectives (not yours) who may be seeing this dialogue as a witch hunt for them because of my own personal foibles and emotive reactions to their positions on politics, hence all this - what is apparently coming across as - softer language.
Please know, in my heart, I’m more Malcolm X than MLK.
I meant to reply yesterday but I got distracted. I have a pretty large bias against nazis / white supremacists and fascists. Unfortunately, on the fediverse, we’re not going to be able to “out now!” them at the door, simply because we’re not going to be able to tell if they’re sitting behind their keyboard (or phone) wearing a vest with iron crosses, nor will we be able to tell if they have either red or white laces in their Doc Martens.
I think that posting content (or in support of content) that falls into the categories you mentioned should equate to getting the boot though.
No screenshots of article headlines. Always require a link to an article instead.
One of the biggest problems I had with reddit was the posting of editorialized headlines with no source. Once I would find the source (if the article is even real), I often find the article contradicts it’s own headline or lacks any sources for the claims made. Of course, the screenshots would be upvoted anyway because people want to be outraged, regardless if the story is accurate or not.
I would want to qualify this a bit to expand, but in short - I would like to see only content that generates discussion or educates the audience. Memes and screen caps of article headlines (I never knew this was a thing on reddit) fail to educate, so I don’t see that having a home here.
Content may be:
- Direct url to reliable or reputable source of journalism (as determined by Media Bias Charts from watchdog organizations). Post title must match article title. Poster must include lead or nut graf in body of post text. Poster may communicate their interpretation or editorialization of the news item in the first comment.
- Direct link to a YouTube video from responsible content creators - no podcasts but yes interviews with direct people of interest from trusted media sources and journalists, even if this content is editorial in nature. Editorial content (for both videos and articles) should be clearly marked EDITORIAL: [original title of linked content]
- OC threads seeking community engagement and debate (ex: DISCUSSION: How have anti-trans laws impacted you or people you know directly?) - the community space for these may be an “enter at your own risk” because I don’t want to get caught in the quagmire of who has a shitty opinion versus who is a shitty person. For threads like this, I think the most moderation we should be doing should be removing/banning spammers and bots. If users want to feed the trolls in these spaces, then I won’t challenge how you like to spend your weekend.
“Be Civil” is the core value for me.
I also have a question, rather than an answer. Should all posts require the URL of an external article? Or are people allowed to post “topic for discussion” and personal opinion posts? There needs to be a place for that, I’m just not sure whether this is it. So far I haven’t found a good venue for that.
Based off Rule #3 I would believe that it’s unspoken. However I think it should be added. I for one liked that r/politics had this rule. This magazine doesn’t have to mirror that, however I believe it’s worth consideration.
That said, Rule #3 could be extended to editorialized media, unless specified that the “editorializing/opinion/commentary” is OP’s. That’s something that should be included.
This is an excellent question and is really up to us as a community to establish. The thought had occurred to me that there’s room in our magazine for:
- politics news that is not US-based
- threads that are discussion only about political events
- responding to something clearly editorial (thinking here if a really cogent YouTuber has a video essay about political matters that isn’t rage bait)
It’s just a matter of community members saying what kind of content they want here and us establishing Badges (we can do that as mods, kind of like post flair).
I certainly don’t insist that opinion posts need to be allowed here, but I think there needs to be somewhere they belong. I guess the question is whether this should be primarily a place to find news or a place for taking about it.
Politics is all about opinion. We all have different opinions on how society should be run. If we only allow fact-based reporting, this magazine might as well just be /m/news. Opinion pieces should definitely be allowed. Maybe limit it to external opinion pieces from established institutions to keep content quality high.