[deleted]
Comment on Does this instance have a stance on right wing disinformation communities?
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
This is a general-purpose instance on a decentralized platform that doesn’t have much of an algorithm. All of us here most likely run into things we don’t like or want to see, and as long as it’s not illegal I think things like this will still be allowed. You can always block communities and follow ones that you like to tailor what you see. If you’re looking for more specific content all around, I’d join an instance that’s more specific to the type of content you’re looking for
WoodlandAlliance@lemm.ee 1 year ago
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yeah of course. I think there are some big-picture issues with moderating “misinformation” and “propaganda” because of how different those definitions can be from person to person. One person might see something as misinformation, while someone else might not see it as misinformation. Another person might value seeing both sides.
“Misinformation,” and “propaganda” are both by definition based on the intentions of the creator, and that’s a difficult thing to try and regulate in an unbiased way while retaining human rights of expressing thoughts and beliefs. A worldwide general purpose instance on a decentralized social network should not be removing content based on assumed intentions or offense.
If we’re dead honest, we are all just repeating things we’ve read, heard, or learned from someone else. Very few of us were actually present in the moment something was done or decided. I think we all should have the freedom to express what we’ve seen, heard, or learned from somewhere else here on this instance.
WoodlandAlliance@lemm.ee 1 year ago
[deleted]shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Alright fair point, what are your thoughts on everything else I said?
raptir@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I’m new here so I don’t have much of a vote, but I have mixed feelings here. I like the idea of not blocking content, but at the same time I think a Vaccines community that is dedicated to spreading misinformation is not something healthy to have.
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Yeah, it’s difficult. If it’s bots/automated posting, that very clearly goes against this instance’s policies.
I like being able to see the full picture, including false information, so removing communities in this way effectively steals that freedom from me.
some_guy@kbin.social 1 year ago
I like misinformation
Holy shitballs man
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
You trying to have a conversation or are you trying to insult me?
It’s the same concept of destroying history or literature. The bad parts of history are just as valuable as the good parts of history. Destroying the bad destroys our ability to see the full picture and learn from it.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Dude, not cool.
TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I get where the comment is coming from. I followed Qanon drops even thought I know it’s batshit crazy and completely untrue. I just want to know exactly what the conspiracy theorists and right wing chuds believe in. It’s a “know your enemy” situation, but it also helps me to determine who to avoid and how to deal with crazy people.
PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Reactionary communities are also the bedbugs of social media.
Once they established themselves on reddit, they quickly spread to other subs and overwhelmed their content with brigading and vote manipulation, trying to push lonely, frustrated people into the far-right funnel.
Thats why I’m not interested in an instance that tolerates them. “Getting an inch and taking a mile” is exactly their statetgy and they’ll quickly render local communities worthless.
lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 1 year ago
We’re talking about a community that is dedicated to posting misinformation and apparently trolling. It is very common for that kind of content and community to be explicitly forbidden in general purpose online communities because that isn’t general purpose content. This isn’t a matter of things people simply don’t want to see. It’s content that has proven to be problematic for any community that it infiltrates and generally results in a decline in quality and decorum.
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I agree. The unfortunate reality is that the line between misinformation and opinion is very different from person to person—especially when it comes to politics. It’s easy to moderate and remove illegal content based on local laws of the country an instance resides in, but trying to moderate content from a single U.S. political party raises more questions and will take more volunteer manpower from admins. We would need to define as a community:
I still don’t think this is the right move. I joined the Fediverse because of the ability to post and consume content without any person or entity manually or automatically determining what I can and cannot see. I specifically chose this instance because of it’s relaxed policy on defederation. I value being able to see all content and be aware of everyone’s voice, even if it is blatantly false information or offensive.
dmention7@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I don’t think anyone is advocating for defederation, just upholding some base standards for discourse on communities directly hosted by this instance. If it was just a normal rightwing sub, I’d agree with you, but defending a blatant troll/disinformation sub is getting into “paradox of tolerance” territory for me personally.
Hell, the snowflakes banned me for making a single post warning another user not to feed the trolls. 😂
I have zero problem with staying federated with instances I vehemently disagree with. But I also have little desire to stay on one that "Free Speech"es itself into becoming a safe space for trolls and disinformation peddlers.
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Hell no, I’m not vouching for defederation or defending those communities in any way. Step back and look at the bigger picture with me. I think there are potential problems with moderating based on vague and non-concrete things, and I’m trying to further the discussion so we define them better together.
If we’re going to remove the communities OP is referring to, for example, we need to define (1) what qualifies as misinformation and trolling, and (2) what content/communities/users we’re proposing to remove in the future.
If we use dictionary definitions…
misinformation: false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive
troll: a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post
… then the admins will have the new responsibility of (1) deciding whether content is true or false, (2) determining the intent of the content creator, and (3) deciding what is offensive or provocative.
Are we going to remove content if it offends someone? Will admins be deleting content based on the assumed intentions of the creator?
That’s not the instance I signed up for, and it also goes against basic human rights. I can see it being highly problematic for moderators and admins in the long run unless we move away from being a “general purpose” instance.
Grangle1@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The one problem is, specifically with this type of conversation, anyone even in the center is not welcome in the conversation because the echo chamber is so strong that anything even in the center is instantly labeled “misinformation”. Who decides what the difference between “opinion I disagree with” and “misinformation” is? Far too often it’s left to a person or group, be it on the left or the right, that holds that anything they or the most vocal political users disagree with is “dangerous misinformation”. And I tend to notice that unless it’s a specific right-wing instance like explodingheads, anything that’s not on the far left is either down voted to oblivion or outright removed and anyone who posts or says anything positive about it is effectively driven out, including people who argue such things in good faith. That tends to lead to the creation of such instances as explodingheads and attitudes like the people who reside there.