Communities should not be overly moderated in order to enforce a specific narrative. Respectful disagreement should be allowed in a smaller proportion to the established narrative.
Humans are naturally inclined to believe a single narrative when they're only presented with a single narrative. That's the basis of how fiction works. You can't tell someone a story if they're questioning every paragraph. However, a well placed sentence questioning that narrative gives the reader the option to chose. They're no longer in a story being told by one author, and they're free to choose the narrative that makes sense to them, even if one narrative is being pushed much more heavily than the other.
Unfortunately, some malicious actors are hijacking this natural tendency to be invested in fiction, and they're using it to create absurd, cult-like trends in non-fiction. They're using this for various nefarious ends, to turn us against each other, to generate profit, and to affect politics both domestically and internationally.
In a fully anonymous social media platform, we can't counter this fully. But we can prune some of the most egregious echo chambers.
We're aware that this policy is going to be subjective. It won't be popular in all instances. We're going to allow some "flat earth" comments. We're going to force some moderators to accept some "flat earth" comments. The point of this is that you should be able to counter those comments with words, and not need moderation/admin tools to do so. One sentence that doesn't jive with the overall narrative should be easily countered or ignored.
It's harder to just dismiss that comment if it's interrupting your fictional story that's pretending to be real. "The moon is upside down in Australia" does a whole lot more damage to the flat earth argument than "Nobody has crossed the ice wall" does to the truth. The purpose of allowing both of these is to help everyone get a little closer to reality and avoid incubating extreme cult-like behavior online.
A user should be able to (respectfully, infrequently) post/comment about a study showing marijuana is a gateway drug to !marijuana without moderation tools being used to censor that content.
Of course this isn't about marijuana. There's a small handful of self-selected moderators who are very transparently looking to push their particular narrative. And they don't want to allow discussion. They want to function as propaganda and an incubator. Our goal is to allow a few pinholes of light into the Truman show they wish to create. When those users' pinholes are systematically shut down, we as admins can directly fix the issue.
We don't expect this policy to be perfect. Admins are not aware of everything that happens on our instances and don't expect to be. This is a tool that allows us to trim the most extreme of our communities and guide them to something more reasonable. This policy is the board that we point to when we see something obscene on !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com so that we can actually do something about it without being too authoritarian ourselves. We want to enable our users to counter the absolute BS, and be able to step in when self-selected moderators silence those reasonable people.
Some communities will receive an immediate notice with a link to this new policy. The most egregious communities will comply, or their moderators will be removed from those communities.
Moderators, if someone is responding to many root comments in every thread, that's not "in a smaller proportion" and you're free to do what you like about that. If their "counter" narrative posts are making up half of the posts to your community, you're free to address that. If they're belligerent or rude, of course you know what to do. If they're just saying something you don't like, respectfully, and they're not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.
Well u didnt elaborate u quoted a saying to dismiss the core point of my argument without addressing it.
No i think both ideas are fundamentally incongruent and thus your reconsilition of them is doublethink (if this by choice i do not know).
I more meant define how/when words are causing intentional and unnessasary harm. I see you trying to avoid specifics here.
U gave a vague a subjectivly interpretable definition, draw a fuckibg line a stand on it.
No it means treating ur dumbassery just the same as anyone else
When was the last time someone was executed by words. When was the last time someone was killed by words. Words may encourage someone to kill onself but words ars not responsible for that the actions of someone upin themselves is.
The fucking dictionary "the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment" im doing my part by treating u equally to anyone else spouting anti liberty shite.
Im not a free speach absolutists i draw the line at actionable incitment of violence. I didnt actually say u had a mental illness i simply outlined a set of beliefs i believed to be exhibited by people i believe to be mentaly ill and u put urself square inside that box of belief.
Again didnt call u mentally ill.
If u wanna talk about meaning of words lets talk about the menqibf of words "free speach".
So ur using speach with the goal to bring me harm "deserve emotional harm". Im a firm believer in equallity and thus if that is ur right to do to me it is my right to do to literally everyone else.
Again i dont give a single fuck what group u are im gonna treat u the same as anyone else. U dont get special treatment u are just like everyone else
Referring me to google is not a rebuttal its a condescending bad faith insult.
So essentially what ur saying is that if i dont agree with you then ur gonna consider me unreachable and a lost cause. Seems like ur incapable of accepting me because of my differing beliefs, imagine if thats how i treated you for whatever group u identify as (dont tell me i dont know and thus cant be bias, nor do i give a single fuck).
Good chat i had fun.