Hello users of hexbear:
Due to recent meta posts in our mutual aid community we wanted to open up discussion about the community !mutual_aid@hexbear.net
We will never require explanation or justification from a user asking for aid in the community, and the mod and admin team continue to commit to not featuring an individual’s mutual aid request to prevent unfair exposure.
In addition, we will maintain a strict “No critical comments or meta comments” on a mutual aid post.
This post is to discuss the mutual aid community’s rule of allowing meta posts: mutual aid as a community, those making posts in it and those commenting on posts.
We are considering removing the exception allowing meta posts but wanted to involve the userbase before committing to a change.
Please comment with any thoughts, feelings, or suggestions regarding this change.
Thank you
Wanted to update what the considered changes to the community are in summary:
We will do a follow up post where voting on keeping the community as is or changing it will occur.
If you want to propose changes to this summary please answer in a comment below this one.
This all seems like it’s going to make it so difficult. I was first directed to mutual aid by someone I met on a suicide pact forum. I was on there asking for someone to help me commit suicide because I was so desperate due to my financial situation. Benefits stopped, overdraft maxxed out, rent debt racking up, no money, just a huge pile of debt. With no money for food I’d been trying to use the food bank, but it was awful. To try and prevent people using it if they don’t need it, they have strict rules in place. The main one is that you have to be referred there from someone like your GP or citizens advice, someone who can vouch for you that you really are in need. This means needing a GP or citizens advice appointment, even if it’s just a phone appointment to explain and prove your circumstances, it could be a really long wait for the appointment or phone call. Then needing to wait for the actual food bank appointment. The amount of food the food bank gives was never enough to last while trying to get referrals and appointments to go back again. I was hungry regularly. So much so that I was trying to get help to end my life and tried selling my prescription meds online as I had no other source of income. Someone on the suicide forum told me about mutual aid, that’s how I came to be here. And while I do sometimes have to make multiple posts to get a response, it’s still so much easier and quicker than the food bank. My worry is if you add these extra rules it is going to become as difficult to get help here as it was from the food bank. And for me, as well as many others, this is the last chance saloon. We have nowhere else to turn. Making it harder here could be the final straw for many people.
seems like a lot of overcorrection that gets in the way of helping people who actually need.
No, users’ needs will often vary; limits like this will cause problems.
This may make sense, but the Active sort definitely incentivizes posts every 6 to 8 hours instead, and I don’t see an easy way around that, unfortunately. I defer to others’ opinions on this one.
On the one hand this sounds like a decent system; on the other hand the potential for abuse does exist. But if people want to try it out, and mods are okay with doing their part, I’d be willing to participate.
Not really, it kinda seems pedantic to me.
Yes; otherwise there is no way to criticize bad actors, and I am of the opinion that the recent meta post, which I believe prompted this one, was valuable and helpful to the community.
No
Yes, I think once a day or every other day is fine, multiple times a day is too much and I feel like it drowns out other requestors
Yes, words mean things.
No, if this means posts within the comm about issues like this. It seems to just cause a lot of tension and regardless of how I might feel about what goes on in this particular comm, the passive aggressiveness that has been prevalent on this site more recently feels terrible. I can’t imagine how it must feel for the people who are being called out, either.
IF meta posts were to stay I think they shouod be strictly moderated and there would need to be ground rules for participation. The personal attacks are outta control
putting a hard limit on the amount seems like a bad idea. even if some people needing more money leads to other people not getting money (which i don’t believe is the case, i believe most donaters will try to donate to a variety of people), some people are just gonna need more money than other people, some people are in more desperate situations that require constant support and some people just need one-off support.
no
no
no, because you have no way of actually confirming that they did donate
yea
idc
don’t limit the amount requested
we won’t be, the users who post in mutual aid and those who comment or donate are overwhelmingly against it as well as most of the userbase at broad
What is the thinking behind no more than $100 per post? What if someone is in an emergency that needs more than that, or the refugees who advertise their gofundmes? I think this rule would screw many desperate people over. How does this work with people who use other currencies?
Also I don’t agree with having to request an amount in the title - I ask for food vouchers and will take whatever someone can give. I often have to make multiple posts before getting a response so i don’t want to be limited by how much I can ask for or I’ll end up with not enough to tide me over from last time while i wait for a response.
What are meta posts?
Why are all these changes wanted?
As far as keeping track, I’ve found (since i ask for food vouchers that can be donated anonymously) some people prefer to remain anonymous, so they probably wouldn’t report anyway. Also very dangerous - for instance, I got trolled on lemmy by someone who kept saying (for weeks) they would send aid but didn’t. He got banned. But people like him want to make life worse for people who need help. They would anonymously report to the mods that they had sent us money, when they actually hadn’t.
Weekly limit on amount of posts - this would prevent people from getting the help they need. It took me about 4 posts to get the help I need this time. I had nowhere else to turn.
All in all I think these changes will remove the only lifeline left for some desperate people.
The only change I want to see is the ability to reply in-thread removed. I, and several other people here, have had people comment in our threads saying they’re going to help, and then they don’t help. Other people see their reply, think we’ve already been helped and then don’t offer any help. It costs us help we would have had from other people.
users can post 3 times a week, asks no more than 100$ each post –Imagine walking up to someone homeless and desperate on the street holding a sign that reads “homeless and hungry anything helps” and saying “You’ve been here every day this week, you can’t get anymore aid, you need to leave.” That’s what this reads like. Limit posts to once a day if you really want to regulate the comm this much, but let the people giving decide the amount. Change the format to require labels like “need for long-term” or something but this just feels like overstepping and a good way to further alienate people who can and want to give more.
display name is changed to “emergency aid” –pedantic and unnecessary, just avoid the struggle session and keep the comm as it is with the added weekly advice/non-monetary aid posts or something
users communicate if they are open to non monetary resources (local aid groups, etc.) –people should ask in the comments before offering advice, the posters shouldn’t have to add this, it should be a given that unless explicitly asked commenters should just shut the fuck up and move on or wait for a thread where advice is meant to be posted
user requests aid, amount requested in title using [$0/$x] format –this is fine but it has the potential for alienating those who can only give a small amount or stopping those who could give more from doing so when it should be up to the person giving how much they want to contribute, it’s none of the community’s business how much is being given
users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment –it’s none of the community’s business how much is being given, have the OP update the post title and say thanks or if they’re good or not or lock it after 72hrs or something, this just feels like such a huge overstep
user updates title with amount received and the thread is locked when the goal is met –it’s none of the community’s business how much is being given, see previous answer
meta posts are no longer permitted –it’s on the mods to determine if this is worth it, but changing a single community rule could address the reason this was brought up
do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested? No.
do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts? Daily, yes, weekly no.
do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating? Absolutely not.
do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid? No.
do you think we should allow meta posts? I don’t think they’re happening enough to warrant this.
This is my reply to the dm, which I’m also going to post here.
No. It isn’t very effective at getting aid.
3 times a week is too few and $100 ain’t shit. If there’s to be a money limit, it needs to be much higher.
No opinion.
Good idea. Only if the user communicates it. No unsolicited offers, because 9 times out of 10 they probably won’t help.
I usually do this anyway. I think it’s a good idea.
Potentially good idea, but unless they provide receipts I don’t think this would work out. What’s to stop someone claiming to have donated to make others think the need is already met when it hasn’t been?
Good idea.
Bad idea. There needs to be mechanisms for community discussion.
Just woke up, might have more thoughts later.
I was just reading and upvoting occasionally up to this point, but I am strongly opposed to a $100 limit (or any financial limit for that matter) and feel I need to directly say so.
There was a time a few years ago where my wife and I were very close to homelessness. We asked in a mutual aid channel of a discord server I sometimes participated in (similar vibe to here, effectively anonymous, mostly just people asking for cash if they need it and giving cash when they can), and thanks to a few very generous people we were able to raise $600. She’s immunocompromised and diabetic, it would have been the two of us and a cat with no car, unable to find work, no way to store insulin, no way to buy insulin, almost certainly unable to mask effectively during a pandemic, and with no friends or family we could turn to. We needed every penny of that money and, through sheer luck and several close calls, managed to avoid the worst case scenario and have now gotten back to a fairly stable living situation.
If there had been a $100 asking limit I am certain that reality would have come to pass and we would not be where we are now. I cannot see any way in which any limit on how much people can ask for will actually, provably help anyone, but I can easily imagine a scenario where a limit endangers or kills people, our comrades and our loved ones.
I think the theory is that a limit to how much each person could ask for allows for more people to use the comms for help, as most donators will have a limited amount to give each week. I agree it’s just too rigid in practice to be a useful change though, especially since the admins couldn’t give exceptions without effectively endorsing the fundraiser, which they understandably don’t want to do.
I see people saying this but without evidence that proves putting a limit on fundraising would actually allow more people to be helped overall, we are just deciding what to do based off of vibes/what sounds right. Personally, I don’t think that’s good enough when considering such a serious rule change.
For sure, it seems pretty far out of scope to expect mods here to decide who is and who isn’t entitled to extra help. I know leaving it up to the discretion of those giving poses it’s own problems, but I think it’s better (or at least more manageable) overall.
Here is my public position.
No.
No.
No.
Put it to a vote.
No, put it to a vote.
Unnecessary. This already occurs when requested.
No. Add rule to ask to voluntarily do so if it fits the context of their needs.
No to a hard rule. Yes as a voluntary obligation to requestors as they are able to and no unless specifically requested.
Limiting the amount requested is a fucking awful idea
I don’t like the idea of setting a limit on dollar amount. That would be a huge setback for users who are asking for help with things like rent, bills, and losing your house to an IDF terror attack.
As for limiting # of posts per week, I think the problem of visibility on that comm needs to be looked at: even before I ruined it for everyone, I noticed that donations would dry up the moment my post got too old and stopped being “hot,” even with a lot of bumps.
I’ll address the other stuff after I take a nap.
because different users can set a different default post sort it is difficult to do anything on the back-end to increase post visibility. I don’t think you ruined it for anyone i just think that right now so many people need help and the average person here may be more strained than before.
Is it possible to create an auto-bump bot that bumps the posts in the comm once a day or something, without users needing to trigger them?
It is possible but would require someone to develop the bot
IMO as someone who frequents the mutual_aid community when I can, we should not be policing posters there with respect to how much they’ve received or how much they can ask for. A consequence of this being an anonymous online community is that there’s no way to know whether someone is being honest, and that is something we should just accept. Others have said this, and I agree with it: if you want to know you’re helping someone who needs it, join a local org.
Potentially a limit to the number of posts could be helpful. However, I understand why people desperate for help would make posts in a short period of time. I would leave that one to people in the comm who need help.
Meta posts calling out other users feels too much like a witch hunt and I believe it’s unproductive (for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1). I feel like mods should handle grievances like that if we choose to handle it at all.
deleted by creator
I agree with everything except limiting the amount requested. That seems arbitrary and would make the comm useless to people who need more than $100 (or whatever limit we would set), as emergencies often are more costly than that especially in the current economy. Imo the other requested changes would greatly improve the experience for both requestors and donators without setting a hard cap on how much someone can ask for.
This
A posting limit might be okay but I don’t think we should limit amount asked.
Tracking would be nice
No need to change the name, it’s just semantics at that point.
No meta posts, if users have actual proof of scamming, they should submit it to the mods and admins.
Mutual aid shouldn’t have any strings attached to it, nor should asking for it have any limits.
I personally think meta posts are fine. If someone is adamant that another is ‘scamming’ - go ahead and post that shit in a separate post from their mutual aid request.
dumb
do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
do you think we should allow meta posts?
didn’t we LITERALLY have this same discussion half a year ago when the same thing happened and decided to let meta posts be a thing but not let those people comment on the actual mutual aid post itself???
yes but the only time the right to make meta-posts was exercised resulted in a lot of people asking for it to be changed resulting in this check-in post
Fair. Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as I was yelling at you (and realize my OP can be read like that).
Thank you for commenting!
I don’t think this is very helpful, different people will have different financial situations, and if we are trying to focus more on emergency aid, some emergencies are much more costly than others. I think this will actively encourage “spamming” at the start of a week and the comm will get flooded with requests all at once, making it much easier for some to slip through the cracks.
This one I agree with, especially with a focus on emergency aid, though I think the mods may have to make exceptions in very specific circumstances, someone having two massive disasters in one week is rare, but not unheard of. I doubt it will ever actually come up though.
I like this idea a lot. I would rather donations not be loud public displays, I don’t feel comfortable donating in such a way, but just a simple tracking system will go a long way, while not actively spotlighting anyone, plus I think seeing locked posts that have had their goals met will be good for morale.
I think since mutual aid is probably a bit too difficult to do over an online anonymous system like this, it is probably better phrased that way.
I think a monthly meta thread could be good, one that enables people to ask for aid that isn’t necessarily financial, more things like advice and support. It could also be a good way to “allow” meta discussion without it taking over the comm.
I like this idea. A regular megathread of advice and resources would actually feel more like mutual aid than just charity.
tldr: NO
Im still failing to see a problem with how things are currently run. can i get more info without calling anyone out? i read thru these replies and im pretty confused about this and why things even need to change.
If we’re bound and determined to “fix” the issue for comrades who just can’t stand to see people asking for money, maybe a major format change could be something like a featured megathread instead? i don’t even like that idea at all, I’m sure that idea has a major downsides but i still think it’s better than trying to limit posts.
Furthermore, what is the endpoint of this accounting, besides eventually questioning aid receivers on the “proper use” of funds received?
i hate semantics, hate hate hate hate hate them.
“meta” as in users attacking or questioning aid receivers, like hella super
“meta” posts as in like…directing donators and requesters to aid programs, yes!
Sticky, sidebar something that might help people get aid they didn’t know was available, or help donators wantin to direct their funds to more accountable, established aid programs might be nice.
gotta be
alla these ideas just seem like means testing with different coats of paint.
Are people donating really upset about their donations not “doing what they should”? I… really think those folks need to take a deep breath and reevaluate what it means to give.
What funds spared will not prevent people needing money again; no matter how we wish it were different. No matter how “well” the receiver spends it. Offering a donation —no matter how high— is never enough payment towards the right to judge how well it is spent.
Those who want to arbitrate “proper” use of donated money should either donate to an org, or put their money where their mouth is, and post their budgets!
Then they should sit on their hands and listen, contrite, as their comrades explain sanctimoniously how their spending could be better directed towards more mutual_aid.
You might not like semantics but “mutual aid” has a meaning and key to that meaning is “mutual aid is not charity” (hence it bring mutual). Right now the mutual aid comm doesn’t really function like that, and personally I don’t think there’s way its set up could ever function as proper mutual aid - which is fine but if you’ve ever done real life mutual aid work it doesn’t look like people asking for cash donations and some cadre giving them. Like semantics or don’t, that’s the motivation.
People tend to get attached to mutual aid as a name because it’s a cool horizontalist leftist thing to do, but we don’t enact that stuff and just take the name.
THANK YOU. A bunch of people are saying that it’s just semantics, but words mean things. In the social services field, the terms “mutual aid”, “harm reduction”, “peer support” among others are being coopted and bastardized and quite frankly depoliticized for profit by the “non-profit industrial complex”. If this is supposed to be a community of leftists we SHOULD care about how these terms are applied. Or maybe I’m just being sensitive because of the work I do idk
Idk, I think the name still works. Right now I’m In a position where I occasionally ask for assistance, but I have an interview coming up that may change that and even allow me to give back to the community. Sometimes the mutuality just takes longer to kick in.
i see what you mean about “mutual” but if we get bogged down with semantics, even if we changed the name wouldnt we just as easily be arguing over what constitutes “emergency”? i guess we could talk about the proper meaning of ‘mutual aid’ but this is an online communist community, the current name falls closely enough to wikipedias entry which I’ll put up for all:
mutual aid
Mutual aid is an organizational model where voluntary, collaborative exchanges of resources and services for common benefit take place amongst community members to overcome social, economic, and political barriers to meeting common needs. This can include physical resources like food, clothing, or medicine, as well as services like breakfast programs or education. These groups are often built for the daily needs of their communities, but mutual aid groups are also found throughout relief efforts. Resources are shared unconditionally, contrasting this model from charity where conditions for gaining access to help are often set, such as means testing or grant stipulations. These groups often go beyond material or service exchange and are set up as a form of political participation in which people take responsibility for caring for one another and changing political conditions
Some of the things in that definition do not fit how this comm is run, youre right. i think that is natural, tho, limitations of the format, and if changes are really needed —probably my professed hatred of semantics makes it obv i don’t think they are— we should if anything strive to more closely meet the definition of mutual aid rather than force-fit the name to what it currently achieves.
real life experience, maybe relevant
I have recently gotten involved with a community farm/food pantry and been (perhaps this is my naivete showing) shocked to see some of the attitudes from the people involved casting judgement on those who line up to receive help. some attitudes of (imo) ‘buying right to judge’ prevail within the group.
one of the people donating their time (for years, mind you) expressed how upset they were by the difference in responses week-to-week, imagining the food we have to deliver wasn’t “good enough”, that there was a “hotline” (their term) of people calling each other to “stay away this time” or “call everyone, come n’ get it!” one week to the next, as sometimes we have steaks etc, and sometimes we only have vegetables or less ‘exciting’ things. i was just shocked by the attitude really. why would they care? what does it matter to them?
peeps who donate their time to the pantry get to pick out a box of food for themselves. i watched that ‘complainer’ set aside the best for themselves beforehand, biting my tongue, because hell, they’ve been offering their time for free for a decade and i don’t know what their circumstances are either. if i cared to soapbox there id judge them for judging others, but then id have to account for myself as well.
some users of the community feel that they have to make multiple posts to even be seen which makes other posts harder unless they also make multiple posts.
the point of accounting is to help posters to update their post with amount received and lock it when the need has been met so other posts can receive the aid
meta as in posts related to anything outside of posting asking for aid, comments bumping it or comments replying that they’ve send the aid which would include both posts detailing suspected scams as well as lists of non monetary aid
thank you for the explanation
of course thank you for speaking up at, after reading other commenter’s perspectives I have reached out to everyone that has used the community this month to get their feedback. we really do want to make the community as helpful and sustainable as possible for the people using it and really it seems that sticking with the current “Mods do not vet individual mutual aid requests. Donate at your own risk” is the best course of action and we will likely ban critical meta-posts of specific users going forward
input for all of these changes should prioritize c/mutual_aid users thoughts first and foremost. from what i’ve gathered reading this thread, most of these proposed changes are from users who don’t interact with c/mutual_aid or are themselves donors. this is not prioritizing the community members most impacted by these changes and instead they’re being ignored, combatted, or scared shitless by these potential changes. these changes have very real and potentially dire consequences for these users. all this doesn’t feel right at all.
some of the suggestions were from private messages from people receiving donations feeling that the current state of the community is not healthy. you are correct about the changes if any should priotritize the community members that would be most impacted. I will reach out privately to those people to see what they think should happen. Do you think that we should keep meta-posts?
reaching out to them all privately would be good. to answer your question, with how the meta-posting has gone in this thread, i personally think we shouldn’t keep meta-posts as too much harm can come from them.
i sent messages to the people who posted there this month and we will weigh their opinions on the community much more heavily than others
Setting a limit is pointless as it’s all voluntary anyway. I want people to be honest about their needs.
I think a posting limit is good as it will give a better overall view of people’s needs in the comm. Those needs don’t typically change throughout the week unless it’s an emergency
I don’t like the idea of this, it’s very micromanagey
Name is fine
No meta posts, it’s disgusting when people attack each others credibility here and it hurts both the accused and accusers. I don’t expect people to be 100% honest here, if they feel the need to lie in order to get fed I’m not going to hold them to the same moral standard I would hold someone who’s financially stable and well fed.
i think this could be used for potential harm to user’s aid posts. i remember c/mutual_aid users mentioning an issue of people not following through with aid after messaging for their details. what would happen if someone reports that they sent funds to a user when they actually didn’t? would confirmation default to the person receiving aid?
i don’t think mods should but i don’t have an alternative that i can think of right now to fully answer this question.
With this proposed system people who say they sent funds and don’t will first be warned and then sitebanned.
How can you verify they did send them?
If its just asking the recipient to verify wouldnt it just be he said she said?
If someone repeatedly comments on the post to say they donated and the recipient says they didn’t get it we would take action. in the event of a user reporting the post with something to the effect of “i’d like to donate to this please notify” then we can do the same thing.
You are correct that at the end of the day it is he said she said but we would establish matrix communication for the sending of proof
I hate to say it but fabricating screenshots is so easy that I struggle to believe such a system could work if used in bad faith by even one person
to demonstrate:
:D
please pet my nose tho
that’s true but I hope that both users pledging to donate and those asking for money would be engaging with the site in good-faith
I just don’t think, especially with money at stake, that it’s reasonable to hope that every single user who ever uses the comm will do so in good faith, or be obvious enough in their bad faith to be sussed out. And even one person with an axe to grind could potentially get someone banned with fabricated evidence. I think we have to build systems that are resilient to abuse where possible and the strong possibility of disciplining a user in need of help feels worse to me than allowing someone to collect donos and not update the post to reflect them. I guess you could say that any mod action being taken requires multiple reports from established accounts showing a pattern of behavior, not just one and done. That would help.
but frankly sending screenshots back and forth offsite also overcomplicates the process of both donating and receiving donations. It just doesn’t feel like a well fleshed out plan to me
exactly why we have set it up as “Mods do not vet individual mutual aid requests. Donate at your own risk” the option to report a post or comment on one with amount donated is to help the poster update with amount received / lock when need is met.
the incentive to dispute that a donation occurred is the limit. if there’s no arbitrary limit per post/week imposed, then both parties can engage in good faith
No.
Maybe?
Yes.
No.
No.
Hey I’m glad to see this situation getting attention but starting out the discussion post with
and then turning around and saying “okay here’s a list of sweeping changes based on feedback” feels like a major shift. I didn’t post any generic suggestions about what to do with the comm because I thought the post was intended to be specifically about one rule changing
anyhow, of that list:
This includes various suggestions made by users and mods both on this post, others and the mod chat
my reading comprehension might just be bad on this tbf. I read it 3x before realizing the second half of that first quoted line I posted was opening up the floor to a broader discussion.
anyhow, I think slap-dash tracking of donos could easily end up worse than doing nothing. we don’t want to deanonymize people more than necessary, we don’t want the system to be exploitable for harassment of specific users or be hard to navigate.
similarly leaving no avenue for complaints seems bad. The (very uncommon, less than once a month) meta-posts attract so much attention because there are some genuine scams going on, not just because they’re bringing out reactionary sentiments (though there always seem to be at least one or two comments that go too far). And unless mods are going to police what is and isn’t a scam, social pressure and metaposts are the only outlet this stuff has. It’s a very thorny thing to balance but I’m glad we’re trying to improve it