So the new rule is to let trolls do what they want, invisibly to the people who care most about that -- because the rule is literally to have to block them? This is fucked up.
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
33 points (75.4% liked)
politics
19159 readers
5938 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here is a gem of a DM from the troll who led to this even-more-hands-off approach, bragging about how they will get away with their influence/troll campaign scot-free.
Notice the use of the word "we", a tacit admission that they are working in coordination with other trolls. Pretty fucking great, eh?
DMs are outside the purvey of community mods, if you get a problematic DM, there's a report feature that goes direct to the admins of their instance and your instance.
In Boost, the lemmy client I use, it's a long-press on the DM to get to the reporting menu.
The official stance with trolls is "report, don't engage".
So no reaction at all to the fact that UM is now admitting to being part of a larger troll effort, after dozens of people told you that was likely, for weeks, and you dismissed all of them repeatedly?
Seems like we were all right and UM should've been banned long ago. Everyone who said they weren't a troll was entirely wrong. That doesn't seem to be acknowledged here at all.
Read what he wrote, he's talking about alts, not a larger troll effort, and, yeah, he's yanking your chain. Any number have alts were already banned, but we aren't going to just ban someone because of "feels". There has to be more to it than that.
You had dozens of people telling you what he was doing. It had zero to do with vague feelings and practically nothing to do with his opinions, despite that always being the claim. It had to do with very obvious trolling. If I get banned for "sassing" you, that will say a lot
Dozens of people saying something doesn't make it infringing.
The links he posted were absolutely valid news sources. He responded antagonistcally to comments that were antagonizing (which is why we have the slapfighting rule now).
That is simply not true. Initially the replies to him were not antagonistic - he started taking that tone when the community asked him about the disparity between his professed beliefs and what he was posting and asking why he was supposedly voting third party. He then ran the table on the mods by engaging in a constant stream of spammy, low effort comments and you all did nothing. And the more you did nothing, the more frustrated and angry everyone became about him.
The mods should at least be able to recognize your hand in how UM played out, instead of blaming it only on the users engaging in "slap fights". The mods chose to moderate per post/comment instead of also considering an account's overall pattern of behavior.
The rules - as written - seem to indicate a level of judgement and assessment that has not been taking place, and user frustration is evident as many of us see how a pattern of behavior of trolling was allowed to continue for much too long because the user in question almost never went too far in any individual message but was quite clearly outside the rules when looked at as a whole.
I admire your stance on not doing a fast-and-loose approach to bans to protect individual voices, but your job as mods also involves protecting these communities from intentional and purposeful bad actors
Nope, reported comments will be addressed as usual.
With all due respect, that did not happen with UM for months and far longer with linkerbaan.
Because they walked a fine line. Bans don't happen on presumptions.
You can't blame the community here for being kind of frustrated with this response. Many people reported trolling behavior for a long time before that ban finally happened. If the things I reported them for myself aren't trolling then I don't know would qualify as trolling.
Several other instances banned UM for trolling long before .world did. Because it wasn't unclear.
The best we can we do is watch and look for an excuse!
An excuse NOT to ban them? That seemed to be the process. And now you've told us to just report and block them.
If hundreds of reports did nothing for weeks about the most obvious troll I've ever seen, I have no faith at all that reporting and blocking trolls will help the fediverse in the least. They will be free to run their election interference campaigns just like on Facebook.
I know modding isn't easy but Jesus this case surely was. No fucking way anyone believed he wasn't a troll if they actually looked at their activity.
No, an excuse TO ban them. Bans happen for cause and it took a long time for the cause to be evident.
If I were capricious as you want me to be, I'd ban you for arguing with me, but that's not going to get anyone anywhere.
Wow okay.
People do this to draw out subtle trolls into more egregious behavior that might draw actual action from mods. You're saying, then, that you genuinely intend to actually enforce rule 4? Because looking through the modlog, there is virtually zero enforcement of it, despite trolling existing in this community.
Tons of rule 3 enforcement, some rule 1, 2 and 6. Very little rule 4. Now, could we say that low effort and trolling comments are not made on here? I think that's pretty obviously not the case. So ... what's the deal with having the rule then?
You ban for mod criticism and parody accounts more than you ban for low effort or trolling. What's the deal? Is there question about what constitutes trolling? Is it the libertarian lean of a portion of the mod team? Is it just a catch-all rule to allow you to ban people you want to ban but that haven't broken another rule? The ruleset and modding of this community is on the inconsistent side in this regard, and I do think we would benefit from a little more transparency into your thinking and methodology overall.
Ultimately, trolling should be policed, due to the corrosive effect it has on the overall quality of community engagement. When one person is fucking around, other people become less likely to take the activity seriously, this is very natural. Anyone who went to school is probably familiar with the phenomenon. There was even a post in technology the other day about some researchers that got some hard data on the effects of positive and negative feelings of chat room participants towards user behavior, and it matched what I imagine is most people's anecdotal understanding. So, why is anti-trolling enforcement here so lax?
edit: Thread on the research, in case anyone missed it:
https://feddit.org/post/4067200
edit2: Has anyone on the mod team ever been a troll? Ever intentionally engaged in trolling in an online community with a goal of creating negative feelings in its users? If not, that could explain why you have difficulty recognizing the signs.
People do this to draw out subtle trolls into more egregious behavior
What if the person 'drawing out subtle trolls' actually ends up looking like they are, themselves, doing the trolling? After all, they're trying to escalate a situation into being rude, and this tends to occur by being - at the very least - heavily obnoxious.
More than looking like. It very much is trolling a troll.
Then I agree with the mod who says to report and not engage.
I do as well, on the assumption that the mods will take an overall harsher stance on the activity. If enforcement remains lax, though, then nothing will change.
Now for queue flooding 15+ articles a day from accounts with superhuman contribution rates…
A lot of people are complaining about Dot, but their total time online is only about 33 minutes a day.
To put it in perspective, that's 4 minutes more than me... So not exactly super human. ;)
That means about two minutes per post?
Is it possible to have a rate limiter on posts? So it's not just a flood from one person all at once? 2-5 minutes feels about right, but I mostly just lurk. (This might not be possible, or even desired by the mod team, I'm trying to think of ways to make your job easier)
Not built in to the lemmy software. I did talk to the Admins about it and the feeling is doing something with Automod, but that's beyond my personal ability to implement.
Reddit has it based on age of account, karma, and if you subscribe to the subreddit or not.
Then you get the "You are doing that too much, try again later."
Sorry to jump in on an unrelated thread; that last reply you made to me (about your tally) is under a post that has now been deleted. You mentioned you're gonna make a final tally and a mega thread on election day; will those be in politics@lemmy.world?
Just confirming here, since I don't wanna touch the ghost reply in my inbox, since lemmy doesn't seem to like that situation very much
Yeah, there will be a final counting the day before the election, and then a megapost on election day.
So if I see someone that was just blocked posting again under another name. Is it OK to make a comment that points this out?
Report them, let the mods handle it. Ban evasion = an instance ban which needs the admins.
So all you need to get a temp ban on someone you disagree with is to make a burner account and provoke them into a slapfight?
Unless they follow the rules and do not engage.
So one piece of well-placed libel that isn't enough by itself to incur moderation.
Ignoring it lets the libel stand. Ignoring it enough turns the libel into accepted wisdom. Reporting it does nothing because it's not enough by itself. Engaging with it results in repetition of the libel. Few cycles of that, slapfight ban.
Reporting as misinformation would get libel removed.