Comment on Hello fediverse

• mayonesa@wolfballs.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Lemmy is still Reddit in spirit.

  source
• Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Hi! Thanks :)

  I still have not really worked out the set of rules, my instance is very small and I here because I like the underlying principles of the fediverse more than because I like to moderate. There is no policy yet on banning "dissent", but it is also not intended to be a "free-speech" platform to the same degree that wolfballs is. It depends. I would not ban someone because I disagree with their ideas, but I will delete content if it is unnecessarily offensive.

  I have put some thought to it as I try to strike a balance... For example, arguing unorthodox ideas such as that the threat of global warming is greatly exaggerated or that vaccines don't work - would be acceptable as long as it is discussed respectfully and even better if sources are provided. Making in /c/biology a post titled "basic biology" and then a picture of a man next to a woman, the man labeled "man" and the woman labeled "woman", would not be allowed, because that would be an obvious provocation meant to offend.

  The topic of my instance is science/nature, and the purpose is to provide a space to have communities such as /r/herpetology, /r/chemistry, /r/science, /r/mycology, etc... away from Reddit. I would prefer to have a relaxed environment for discussing interesting science rather than a politically charged one, and I find that more important than total un-filtered free speech. I am learning as I go.

  source

  • sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    It sounds like you're trying to find a proper balance of being reasonable to allow discussion but also being reasonable to keep needlessly offensive, I can respect that. I know there's times I've seen people being needlessly disrespectful using an FBXL website, and it stung. It's like "C'mon, did you really have to do that?", but my philosophy and TOS is "I'm not your dad, and you're not mine" so I don't like to step in unless it's something that might be existentially dangerous to the platform I run.

    The two pieces of advice I have for anyone who is trying to be reasonable and keep it between the lines and build a community of diverse yet respectful opinions are:

    1. Keep the wikipedia rule of "assume good faith" in mind. Not everyone is a Russian troll or a "correct the record" paid shill, sometimes people just are wrong about something -- or right about something you're wrong about -- or agrees with you but isn't expressing themselves clearly -- or is misunderstanding what you're saying.

    2. Have a progressive moderation policy -- meaning have some steps including some warnings before someone hits "site-wide lifetime ban" so that people conversing in good faith have a couple chances to change their behavior. You can probably skip steps for particularly egregious behavior, most behavior by definition isn't particularly egregious.

    source

    • Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Thank you, I appreciate the advice and I think that it is good advice.

      With regards to (1), I always assume good faith when it comes to arguments! It is usually when slurs are used that I have problems. I think that most people understand why slurs are offensive and that it is easy to have a discussion without using them. I also understand that many people believe that words should not hold the power that many of us given them, and that it is ridiculous to 'ban' a single word, and so in that regard they may be using them in good faith. It is complicated, but in the context of my instance I prefer to accept that simple words can trigger strong negative emotions and strive to have a peaceful relaxed environment.

      (2) Yes, I banned one person once for a comment on accident but un-banned them immediately and removed only that comment. Other than that I have only banned people from the 4chan brigade and users posting spam, mostly about selling viagra pills. To be fair, not a lot of people have posted in my instance, so I have not had the opportunity to test my limits 😅

      On that note... A slight diversion. I have no idea where these viagra spammers come from, and I am actually curious now about how their spamming scheme works. Is there a building somewhere where people get paid to spam viagra ads all day? I feel like having a bot capable of posting to a lemmy instance would be too specific, but maybe bots these days are sophisticated enough to identify message boards and post to them. Otherwise, it has to be manual.... But, who are they? Why spam useless ads?! Will anyone buy those products? How did they get to my instance?

      source
  • masterofballs@wolfballs.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    For example, arguing unorthodox ideas such as that the threat of global warming is greatly exaggerated or that vaccines don’t work - would be acceptable as long as it is discussed respectfully and even better if sources are provided.

    Completely reasonable and a sensible approach.

    .../c/biology a post titled “basic biology” and then a picture of a man next to a woman...

    The great thing about the fediverse is every instance gets to make their own rules. My take on it, These sort of discussions have many grey areas. What is offensive to include for one person is offensive not to include for another. I prefer to remove myself from the equation as much as possible and let mods mod for themselves. Trying not to delete pointlessly offensive content is super hard and I would not expect most people to try to do it.

    source

    • Sal@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Completely reasonable and a sensible approach.

      My own personal opinions change very often as I learn more about topics, so if I were to ban people who I disagree with I would end up banning myself for my old comments!

      I prefer to remove myself from the equation as much as possible and let mods mod for themselves. Trying not to delete pointlessly offensive content is super hard and I would not expect most people to operate that way.

      Yes, I think that that is a good way of doing things.

      source