Comment on Does this instance have a stance on right wing disinformation communities?
shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 10 months agoHey, it’s okay to break down a metaphor if I don’t think it’s applicable to the conversation.
Yes, totally I agree with you, I think admins should review reported content and do some investigation if needed.
I guess I have a problem with removing users and communities based on someone’s opinion of the content itself. Vote manipulation, brigading, creating multiple accounts to push agenda, repeated automated posting, and even organized trolling like you mentioned are not direct opinions on the content posted. They are clearly defined and relatively easy to identify. “Disinformation,” “recognizable sources,” and “hot button political issues” are direct opinions about the content or subject of a post or community. They are not clearly defined and differ greatly from person to person.
I asked you to suggest a definition or criteria of disinformation to move us from the “what” to the “how.” Thinking about how this might be regulated practically might help you understand why I think it’s problematic to remove users and communities based solely on someone’s opinion of their content.
dmention7@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Believe me I do understand why it could be considered problematic. My disagreement stems from the idea that it’s better to have no policy rather than an imperfect policy or one that relies on some discretion.
My point in highlighting that disinformation centers around a few hot button issues is to reinforce that we’re not talking about some nebulous or opinion-driven debate; rather there are a few key disinformation strategies that take advantage of the “bullshit asymmetry” to poison real discussion.
I’m simply unconvinced by arguments that it’s too hard to identify and nip such malicious communities in the bud. Even less so by arguments that doing so is somehow a slippery slope.