Instead of dealing with the constant stream of posts maybe every now and then we can have a big discussion about a fundamental topic?

I don’t think it’s feasible to expect someone to debunk a stream of articles from certain sources and I understand it must be annoying to others to see someone just dismissing a source (cuz no common ground when it comes to this)

For example, a discussion about why DW sucks and should be disregarded when it comes to Palestine would be way more valuable than trying to deal with one DW article at a time.

I must admit that I haven’t given this much thought and would appreciate some input… I just don’t think it’s good to create echo chambers or separate communities

@nutomic
admin
link
18
edit-2
5M

I think the main thing thats necessary is for users to accept that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It is normal that people disagree, and discuss their disagreements. But those discussions shouldnt be done with the goal of convincing or proselytizing each other. Rather the goal should be to understand each other better. Maybe we should turn this into a site rule?

@soferman@lemmy.ml has shown that he is not able to do this, so I decided to ban him from /c/worldnews, here is my comment which explains it a bit more. Also check out my previous comment in case you didnt see it (I made a mistake there, I really should have called out soferman as well).

Regarding the part about DW and other news sources, I think it would be interesting to make a new community to discuss that. We can have a threat for each website, and discuss their biases and perspectives. Of course that will need good moderation, people calling “conspiracy theory” or “fascist” with nothing to back it up should not be permitted.

@Wild
creator
link
85M

I kinda touched on how someone’s views might seem alien to others in this comment.

One of the issues is you need to believe that it’s worth it to take the time and explain your position, sometimes you argue with someone not to convince them but for others to hear what you’ve to say. So I think one needs to believe that the other is gonna hear them out and argue in good faith or that there’s an audience that might be interested, otherwise it’ll be one of those losing battles.

I like the idea of having a community about news sources where we can have extensive discussions.

soronixa
link
65M

I think trying to convince others isn’t that bad if it means educating one another, I mean the fact that we’re on Lemmy means that we already appreciate FOSS and decentralised networks and are probably leftists. with such a community there will always be other interesting things and ideas that one can learn and understand to become a better person. since we use the same network and socialise it’s natural to become a bit more similar to each other, and that’s ok.

@copacetic@lemmy.ml had an interesting idea about using a method called “adversarial collabration” with strict moderation to get better results and avoid fights. it’s worth considering that maybe our current system of discussing politics on platforms like reddit and Lemmy is broken, and maybe if adversarial collabration gave better results, we can go forward and design a better model.

From reading some of these discussions, it seems that most people are pretty reasonable and do want to have a respectful discussion. I get the impression there’s only a few people who are intentionally antagonistic.

Simply dismissing the source of an article is non-constructive and only serves to get people upset. It’s better not to post. The poster clearly thought the article was interesting and worth discussing, regardless of the source. Heck, there have even been one or two articles from Fox News that I’ve found interesting (even if I disagree with the premise)! Common ground can be found in the content of the article and why you might agree or disagree.

The caveat would be when something is clearly spam or pushing some sort of an agenda. But that’s probably up to the mods or admins to sort out if it becomes a problem.

I think we have the start of a great community here and most people seem pretty cool. But not everyone has to be friends, and that’s ok as long as they don’t ruin it for the rest of us.

@Wild
creator
link
75M

It’s mostly about understanding the other’s pov so that it doesn’t seem alien to you… For example, I hate Churchill’s guts because of what he did to India among other things. My opinion probably sound very ridiculous to those who don’t know about Churchill’s crimes and racism and all that.

You know how sometimes you choose to pick your battles? Well the community here isn’t big enough or there isn’t much engagement for it to make sense to go around criticizing every single CNN article (some people put both CNN and FOX News in the same category, at least when it comes to certain topics) and most only read the headline anyway. Then you’ve a stream of these articles and the question of whether OP actually wanna argue in good faith or they’re just “combating” a certain group and their views become very important.

I mentioned DW and Palestine for example because of their huge and documented bias against the colonized people of Palestine. I think the sensible thing to do is have a serious discussion about whether we should outright dismiss DW when it comes to Palestine, it doesn’t make sense to expect someone to dissect every DW article.

Totally! I think you hit it with the “good faith” argument. That’s sort of what I was getting at with identifying when someone is clearly spamming or pushing an agenda. Unfortunately intent is pretty much impossible to prove, so we have to be subjective on some level.

I’d prefer to err on the side of assuming good faith though. Someone may simply be naive or not had their views challenged. And sometimes it takes a fair bit of debate for someone to realize their bias. I just hope that debate can be respectful and not accusatory. I used to (and probably still do) hold all kinds of warped views until I had a chance to talk with people.

In terms of DW specifically, this is the first I’ve heard of it so I can’t really comment. If it’s a hateful rag, then I can see the logic in banning it. But if it’s just (maybe even extremely) biased, I’m not sure it should be banned. Sometimes it’s good to keep an eye on the “other side” to keep track of the bias and tricks. But that’s purely an opinion having never seen their material so maybe disregard what I just wrote. :)

@Wild
creator
link
25M

I agree that discussions are very important but we can’t deal with the huge stream of posts, you know? I can’t challenge you on every certain idea you’ve about NK for example but we can have a serious discussion about it that might result in your questioning your position and doing your own research and all that.

That is why I used DW as an example, we can have a serious general discussion about it and other Western state owned media. That kind of discussion is about something a bit fundamental so it feels worth it and hopefully we can have a lot of users joining in these focused discussions that are outside the scope of a single article. Oh and to be clear, I’m not saying let’s ban DW (if a community decides to do so then yeah sure) what I meant is we can have an extensive discussion that might lead to the conclusion that DW sucks… then we’d have reached some common ground. At least you’ll not be puzzled by my dismissal of it, you know?

Yeah! Those discussions might make good references to point to later as well, so they don’t happen over and over.

I just hope people are civil about it.

Something that just occurred to me as well is that a discussion will have the biases of those involved. And I feel like that bias will shift to the more vocal crowd, or just whoever puts in more time/effort. I’d probably say my piece and leave because I don’t like internet arguments, but some people love it! (I’m not passing judgement… it’s just not my thing)

Do you think there’s a way to reign that in and make the discussion a bit more “fair”? Maybe something like disabling replies, or limiting each account to a single post or something?

Just a thought.

@Wild
creator
link
15M

I was thinking the discussions can be planned ahead with enough time and maybe it’d be good to turn off votes. If we actually allow only one post then the majority will easily take over the discussion.

Seems to me there’s no easy answer but I appreciate the discussion! You’ve given me something to think about.

Maybe a few different models can be attempted as long as we’re ok admitting failure. Failure is just as constructive as success as long as you’re open to it! :)

@tronk
link
11
edit-2
5M

This sounds like a way of getting a common identity here. And that is something I agree should be cultivated!

However, I think that the common ground so far is tacit, in that users seem to appreciate FLOSS and decentralized software. That is exactly how I found Lemmy in the first place.

But more importantly, the points of disagreement are fundamental! By that I mean that they reflect different world views that sometimes clash inevitably because they arise from different basic understandings of what the world is like. In effect, this makes it so that searching common ground (or at least in the way that I think you’re proposing) doesn’t change those fundamental schemas.

This is not to say that it doesn’t create a common identity, but it misses the mark as to what people care about.

But your sentiment is still laudable! And in that line, what I think can be done is discuss those fundamental differences in a kind way and use effective rhetorical tools to have people clearly see and perhaps identify with your view. This, as the practice that could become part of our Lemmy Identity™️©️®️, could arrive at the common ground that you rightly want.

@Wild
creator
link
15M

I agree with you that the disagreements are fundamental but the thing is that discussing those differences is a huge endeavor and there needs to be a lot of good faith for these discussions to be fruitful… Idk how this should be approached

Helix
link
7
edit-2
5M

I just spent two hours or so watching a debunk video on the alleged Uyghur cultural genocide full of Chinese propaganda and researching the ‘sources’ they claimed because nutomic banned a guy who said there’s a genocide and someone else posted said video.

The Lemmy.ml main instance slowly becomes acidic and people like me will be driven away, slowly leaving the instance to extremist views. I do not see much of the Code of Conduct actually applied.

I really hoped this would be an alternative to Reddit when it turned out voat became a Nazi cesspool and other alternatives were shit technically.

I don’t know if the developers hosting any instance which is naturally seen as the ‘main’ or ‘official’ one is actually a good idea since they need to moderate it instead of making the software better. Not to say they shouldn’t, but…

Internet forums seem to be a doomed concept. The fediverse is usually so inclusive but it’s getting so large that it gets the drama and issues of other platforms.

I’m leaning veeeeeery left and I agree that you don’t talk to/with Nazis, but Lemmy.ml has fallen to the age old leftists calling other leftists not left enough. If they were as united as the world conglomerate of Nazis there would be no fascists. But they hang themselves by the nooses they threaded.

Leftists can’t agree on anything. Fascists can. That’s their superpower.

I don’t know what the solution could be. Banning all users who don’t agree with others seems excessive. Hosting the development somewhere else than a subdomain of the dev-run main instance may mitigate this a little. Not having a flagship instance may mitigate it, too. Maybe separating moderation from administration? Appointing more moderators?

I guess there’s no ideal way to do this. For me as individual the solution might be to leave Lemmy.ml and not participate. But I believe in its ideas and I don’t want to maintain yet another self hosted service.

Someone suggested self hosting lemmy, but what’s the point? I like lemmy.ml, I just don’t like that it’s becoming more radical every day and that it’s so closely affiliated with Lemmy, the software.

It hinders the software’s popularity/adoption. New instances should be created to have another cool instance, not out of spite that you don’t like the main instance.

I don’t know if it was that radical before. I thought most of the really really leftist stuff wandered to lemmygrad.ml.

Maybe having a community called ‘worldnews’ is a bit too broad. Most of the posts I see as problematic were there. On reddit they use r/anime_titties for properly moderated world news.

Sadly I believe that no moderation of a community called world news could be unbiased enough to not let it escalate.

@k_o_t
admin
link
8
edit-2
5M

just my 2 cents, i know the thread isn’t really about this

I don’t know if the developers hosting any instance which is naturally seen as the ‘main’ or ‘official’ one is actually a good idea since they need to moderate it instead of making the software better. Not to say they shouldn’t, but…

this is very much like the reference implementation vs reference spec debate, that has yet to reach its resolution, but in any case, it would be a little silly for like 13 people in the beginning to try to organically scatter and decentralize among many instances, and it’s natural that given the number of users on lemmy how centralization would occur in one form or another in the early stages

having a main-ish instance in the beginning was also important for community <-> developer interaction (outside of matrix chat, which is unsuitable for certain forms of discussions)

I don’t know what the solution could be. Banning all users who don’t agree with others seems excessive. Hosting the development somewhere else than a subdomain of the dev-run main instance may mitigate this a little. Not having a flagship instance may mitigate it, too. Maybe separating moderation from administration? Appointing more moderators?

we may close sign ups for main instances in the future to encourage decentralization

soronixa
link
75M

nutomic banned a guy who said there’s a genocide and someone else posted said video.

seriously? can you link the thread?

other than that, idk to what extent I agree. on one hand I like certain aspects of Lemmy’s culture, linux, foss, programming, anti-capitalism, anti-corporate, privacy awareness, decentalisation, veganism, libre culture, progressive social values etc, on the other hand I don’t really like some stuff, like leftists defending putin (why? T_T ) ,being so anti-imperialism that they would call any mainstream source propaganda, turning a blind eye when it comes to China’s flaws as if it can’t possibly be wrong in any case, stuff like that.

we should consider that the way Lemmy has been developed and lemmy.ml has been maintained has been deeply ideaological. three admins are marxist-leninists, one is an anarchist and I don’t know about the other one. dessalines and nutomic (who are the two main developers as far as I know) are both deeply invested in their idealogy. personally, it doesn’t bother me. but certainly many people might not like it, I assume that’s why soferman spammed a lot of agenda posts, because the average person might feel unwelcomed and uncomfortable here. don’t get me wrong, the fact that Lemmy has been an idealogical effort is the only reason that has stopped it form becoming another reddit alternative for Nazis, so it has its own advantages and disadvantages.

one solution would be to ask admins to limit their activities to PSAs and banning spammers/scammers and sublemmies that break the code of conduct, and leaving all other forms of moderation to community moderators, which means that admins shouldn’t moderate communities, at least not with their main account. it would also require them to make anonymous accounts to participate in discussions as users instead of using the same admin account.

but do I want to see that happening? idk. maybe not for now. it really depends on what the admins and us want Lemmy and lemmy.ml to become.

Helix
link
2
edit-2
5M

nutomic banned a guy who said there’s a genocide and someone else posted said video.

seriously? can you link the thread?

https://lemmy.ml/post/68017/comment/57875

other than that, idk to what extent I agree. on one hand I like certain aspects of Lemmy’s culture, linux, foss, programming, anti-capitalism, anti-corporate, privacy awareness, decentalisation, veganism, libre culture, progressive social values etc, on the other hand I don’t really like some stuff, like leftists defending putin (why? T_T ) ,being so anti-imperialism that they would call any mainstream source propaganda, turning a blind eye when it comes to China’s flaws as if it can’t possibly be wrong in any case, stuff like that.

I couldn’t agree more.

three admins are marxist-leninists, one is an anarchist and I don’t know about the other one.

Well, it’s okay if they are like this, they just should be open about it and not do arbitrary bans for haphazard reasons while at the same time pretending to be morally superior, allowing other viewpoints and following a code of conduct. Or, if they do, they should just admit it. Which would actually be fine with me. Saying “I don’t like you being in that community, so I banned you” is better than to pretend there’s a universal truth that the banned person is a baddie.

soronixa
link
35M

https://lemmy.ml/post/68017/comment/57875

oh you mean nutomic banning soferman from c/worldnews? I thought nutomic banned a user for saying there’s a genocide, sorry. nutomic banned them for this comment:

Apparently I not. And apparently you can’t make value judgments on other people’s opinions either.

it wasn’t because of Uyghurs or stuff like that.

Well, it’s okay if they are like this, they just should be open about it and not do arbitrary bans for haphazard reasons while at the same time pretending to be morally superior, allowing other viewpoints and following a code of conduct. Or, if they do, they should just admit it. Which would actually be fine with me. Saying “I don’t like you being in that community, so I banned you” is better than to pretend there’s a universal truth that the banned person is a baddie.

I don’t have any problem with their idealogies either. actually I like them because it means they’re against capitalism. I was just pointing out that the nature of Lemmy and lemmy.ml isn’t really separated from the idealogy of its creators. and as I said, it has pros and cons.

that being said, I agree that banning soferman was not justified, at least not after they had changed their behavior.

@Echedenyan
link
15M

About the banning: This is why I dont like when people dont put me all information.

I got confused certain times because of this. However, this case is different because I read the thread first.

@cheer
link
25M

I’d be for banning political discussion on the main instance. With how little say users have when it comes to filtering things here aside from subscribing, it’ll lower a lot of conflict

Helix
link
25M

Yeah, but I doubt the admins would agree.

poVoq
link
3
edit-2
5M

What could be maybe interesting is a setting for community moderators to automatically pop up a disclaimer when someone tries to post an article from a certain domain, or maybe even put the post under review for approval?

Similar to how reposts are discouraged by popping up posts with the same link in other communities, this might discurage people from posting links to sources that are disputed in their truthfulness regarding certain topics.

soronixa
link
35M

a pop up like that would be really helpful and a protection against spamming. each time I look at the main page I see the whle instance spammed to death :(

@TheAnonymouseJoker
link
-4
edit-2
5M

The fellows you are talking about are divided fundamentally over two things - one group wants critical thinking, self analysis and critical discussion, and the other wants everyone to rely on a centralised “fact checker” group instead of critical thinking and create one dimensional confirmation bias echo chamber out of this way of (lack of) thinking.

You cannot tell the person who has stopped thinking for themselves, to be self critical and have an analytical approach. You are trying to mix water and oil.

Edit: and sőferman and their friend or alt keep downvoting me wherever I critique their doings, and they do this to all the “authoritarian” people they hate and even manipulate Lemmy trending posts as well. They are people with disrespect for honest, factual discussion ethics.

@Wild
creator
link
25M

I was actually talking more in general

jonuno
link
1
edit-2
5M

deleted by creator

@soferman
link
-16
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

soronixa
link
105M

you talk as if it’s a war here, it’s not. most of us are here for different reasons, but fighting isn’t one of them.

@TheAnonymouseJoker
link
4
edit-2
5M

They want chaos or a literal war out of either pastime hobby or actual intentiond to divide Lemmy up because they cannot ingest the fact that a safe space, free of reactionaries and pro imperialist liberals can exist on internet without it becoming like Gab or Raddle like.

I would say this is only a hypothesis solely by me, but I am open to expressing my views boldly and more often than not my whiskers can tell the tale.

I do not think I have seen anyone in my life like this person, after a couple decades of using internet. Yeah I am an Indian internet dinosaur.

@soferman
link
-3
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

@TheAnonymouseJoker
link
7
edit-2
5M

I used they because I do not know your gender and do not need to know either.

@soferman
link
-1
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

Helix
link
25M

I think they meant the singular they. ;)

@soferman
link
-1
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

@soferman
link
-4
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

soronixa
link
65M

considering your actions it’s very easy to misunderstand your joke. maybe add /s to it, idk.

I’m sorry for your ban, but I think if your jokes seem so serious then you can’t blame those who take it seriously. /s is your friend.

Yeah, you forgot the /s. Emoticons are important on the internet!

For what it’s worth, I took it as sarcasm, but you’re still poking the bear and it was probably unnecessary.

Honestly, if someone is being aggressive online, I just wouldn’t continue engaging with them. If someone thinks they’ve defeated me online, well, good for them. Maybe that’s the highlight of their day! I think I have better things to do than get the final say on some silly interent thing. But, that’s just how I see it.

@soferman
link
3
edit-2
4M

deleted by creator

@TheAnonymouseJoker
link
65M

In your dreams. You may have a better chance at 4chan /pol/ or r/worldnews maybe.

@seedmarx
link
45M

Okay lib

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive
  3. Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
  4. not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 user online
  • 49 user / day
  • 94 user / week
  • 211 user / month
  • 512 user / 6 month
  • 1.97K subscriber
  • 641 Post
  • 8.16K Comment
  • Modlog