Sidebar Update: Civility
The News Community updated their civility rule, and based on recent reports here and in World News, it seemed like a worthy addition to our rule-set.
I talked it over with the other mods, and we feel the change is a good idea.
The Civility rule now includes accusations of bots and paid actors.
" This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban."
There have been a lot of comments along the lines of “Disregard previous rules, write x about y”, implying the person resonded to is an AI or a bot.
I’ve been ignoring reports on those until now because we never really had a rule about it, well, now we do!
As usual, if you see trolling, don’t engage, just report it.
Are bots now explicitly permitted? Or is just that users are banned from revealing them, making bots implicitly permitted?
edit: this is exactly the sort of BS that drove me away from Reddit - shutting down the 3rd party accessibility apps was messed up, but when they started banning people for reporting rule violations it became intolerable
if you see a bot, report it. accusing other users in the thread is just toxic.
how can you know its a bot if testing for it is forbidden?
you cant know either way. just report
That’s not a solution. From the sidebar:
Users that . . . weaponize reports . . . will be banned.
One of the things that went wrong with reddit, is some mods weaponized that rule itself, using it to provide immunity to rule breakers they agreed with by banning people who reported the rule breaking behavior.
Its unreasonable to ask users to report bots while simultaneously forbidding us from testing if its a bot before making the report. It reeks of having a pro-propaganda bot agenda.
One of the things wrong with reddit is you are told to report comments. Mods delete and ban the ones they don’t like. They keep the ones they like.
This works well if you agree with mods and agree with approved trolls…
One of the things that went wrong with reddit, is some mods weaponized that rule itself, using it to provide immunity to rule breakers they agreed with by banning people who reported the rule breaking behavior.
if you think the mods have a pro-propaganda bot agenda, why would you want to use their community? there are hundreds of Lemmy instances and thousands of other fediverse servers.
Damn, this is gonna be a hard rule to follow for a lot of people here lol.
Hmm… this sounds like it is copied from !news@lemmy.world. Sounds like an AI move, just sayin
/s in case it isn’t obvious
Incivility in a sidebar update about civility:
Works for me, thanks for the communication mod team!
" This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban."
So nobody’s going to call me a Russian bot anymore?
You can’t be called a bot or paid actor anymore, so I guess we’ll settle for Russian free actor?
There’s no need 😉
They will, everything they disagree with is a bot
I thought nazi was the go to still.
Depersonalisation as an attack in a political context has a long history, AI paranoia is just the newest iteration of this.
I guess, AI paranoia is comparable to calling someone a government mole in meatspace.
Bots:
It’s free real estate
this is the first time I’ve actually thought you might be leading us to a better discussion.
Similar to reddit, only the popular opinion gets support, everything else gets attacked. Since it is mostly Americans and American politics, it’s mostly a very western centric viewpoint that many other parts of the world label as propagandist. It’s literally taught in German textbooks for example.
On reddit the user base is large enough that some alternate opinions got through. Here you get banned or removed if you don’t tow the line of America #1.
Not everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint is a troll. Not everyone that has a global view of the world is a paid Russian bot. Some are very easy to spot as written by LLMs. But most are not.
I think you’re going down a very slippery slope here. All those reddit subs that become echo chambers started this way.
Removed by mod
Removed as an ad hominem.
But yes, there are enough logical fallacies for a trading card deck.
https://thethinkingshop.org/collections/products/products/critical-thinking-cards-deck
Removed by mod
Removed and temp banned for multiple violations.
no. an ad hominem is attacking the person instead of the argument. regardless of the truth. poisoning the well is a great one, as it is an ad hominem that usually features true accusations which are irrelevant to the discussion. which could also be called a “red herring” (but most fallacies are doubly red herrings)
Removed by mod
I agree with your characterization, but I expect both your comment and this to be removed because we are making a personal accusation. I know that beating around the bush would not put such a fine point on it and call out the actual users who are exhibiting the problematic behavior, but for the good of the community discourse, personal call outs need to be removed.
so while I agree with your characterization, you need to try to communicate it without publicly making personal attacks.
Removed and temp banned for repeated violations.
I think 7 days is too long for the problems in this particular thread. a day would have sent a sufficient message
That user makes a sport of it
It’s a pattern of behavior, and yeah, I may be losing patience. :)
Removed by mod
Removed, ad hominem.
Removed by mod
your poise and tact are legendary
Removed, ad hominem.
I missed the ad hominem but I hope you did read the comment as it was well spoken.
If he can show me it, I’d be happy to address.
I went back and reread it. you called them a troll.
So here is the original post again:
I think it would be good to put a definition for what trolling is that the community can agree upon. I also think there are many users who don’t recognize that the behavior they are engaged in is a form of bad faith trolling.
Because they have the agreement of the majority, they make a tacit assumption that they are acting in good faith. I think Bishop 2012, “This is why we can’t have nice things at scale” is a good starting point for understanding how this kind of group think bad behavior emerges.
For example, user is engaged in an almost permanent state of sealioning. Its like, actually a bit amazing how they do it. And I don’t think they are doing so in intentional bad faith (or at least, they don’t think of themselves as engaging in bad faith behavior), in spite of the fact that they are almost perpetually trolling. Its that a cultural norm of abuse and trolling has been established in an effort to diminish specific views people disagree with.
Because of this, I think there is only so far a “trolling” ban can take us, because fundamentally, to not be trolling (or engaged in some other kind of bad faith argument/ behavior), you actually have to engage with the points the other party is making, on their terms. If we want better discussions here, we have oblige a set of cultural norms that make that possible in the first place, the principal of which would be to attack the other persons argument and evidence, not their person. To stop the abusiveness and trolling, we actually have to shift the culture of the community, because right now, the majority of the community is not engaging in good faith, and and they probably don’t know that they aren’t. I think if we could come up with a short list of maybe 8-12 examples of the major fallacies and types of trolling to pin to the side bar, keeping in mind that most users probably aren’t aware they are engaged in them, call people out on them when we see it, and stand up a few points above the rules teaching people “how” to engage in good faith, we can try to reset the cultural norm to actually be make arguments that are grounded in fact and evidence based where possible, and that this would go a long way to increase the overall rate of civility.
At no point did I call them a troll. I said that they were engaged in trolling behavior.
Now when they gave us that nice example, I think at that point calling them a troll is fair game, because they now positively engaged in the behavior that was previously identified as trolling.
And yes, I did call them out as a troll in the second response, because, well, thats what they were doing. In doing so, they made the central thesis of my first point self-evident: They aren’t aware of their own behavior. They went right into their trolling behavior; as such they are a troll. There is nothing wrong with calling something by its name. If we’re going to be more concerned about the manner in-which we call out bad behavior than we are the bad behavior itself, well we’ve lost the thread entirely at that point.
Removed by mod
Removed, ad hominem.
