Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don’t help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I’m placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This week, I’d like to discuss something that’s been a bit of an issue for me personally.
Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.
I’ve personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil’s advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they’ve discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I’ve made here and use them as “receipts” in order to dismiss anything they think they’re reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.
I’m someone who operates on the idea of “If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion.”
To quote myself:
It’s pretty tragic that people can’t handle opposing opinions. I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.
Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
- Do downvotes represent a “disagree” button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
- Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
- Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
- Is there a way to build a “safe space” without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve thought about this, and I’ve put together my niche community moderation rules into a single post. https://hackertalks.com/post/13655318
TLDR: Banning sucks, but its the only tool I have available at the time to grow the niche communities.
100%. I despise most of the moderators and admins on Lemmy because they use their power to ostracize and delegitamize the voice of others whilst acting as if they are the “good guys” and not as bad as mod forces of conventional social media.
Is there a way to build a “safe space” without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
It’s impossible to build a safe space even with echo chambers. Many “safe spaces” such as blahaj.zone are extremely hostile to outsiders, which causes the entire term to fall in vain. The paradox of intolerance proves that aiming for tolerance in an online platform is futile and simply causes asymmetric information to become the norm, promoting bullying of people with dissenting opinions. Literal fascism.
Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
A community who bans people for downvoting is probably a shithole regardless.
Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
Nothing. The Fediverse is completely unable to solve this because humans are flawed. Every single instance administrator is biased, and being able to run your own instance and ban whoever you want is a recipe for disaster.
Just speak your mind and if people don’t like what you say then create your own instance. Nobody should be pressured into a hivemind.
Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
I’ll just speak to this point generally.
Depends on the communities specific focus. Downvote trolls can be a problem for small communities trying to build up as they can successfully bury threads. I managed to discover the serial downvoters on my old lemm.ee communiy and when I banned them (about 5 of them?) it had a huge impact. They didn’t all downvote /everything/ but they downvoted a lot of things, and they had no contribution to their names. Some of the accounts in question literally had no posting history. These accounts just existed to downvote.
Now, I wouldn’t just ban random accounts for occasional downvotes - but if I kept seeing the same names on threads (and they never actually engaged with the community) with no discernable pattern of downvoting - I might.
Yeah, that’s essentially how I handle it. If it see one-offs, it’s not an issue. If I see DOZENS in a short time from one account with no post history? That’s a problem.
I mean I’m quite liberal on it. I know a number of users in my community that downvote a bit, but those users also actually post and have some interest in the subject matter - so I accept it.
But there really are accounts that have zero posts but downvote EVERYTHING.
Agreed. There’s a massive difference between an active community member with high standards and a random downvoting everything.
If your community is low traffic than 1 downvote troll can really damage a community posts engagement.
some people and mods on Lemmy have nanometer thin skin. it’s kind of expected with the free for all nature of who can make a community and moderate it.
their communities will either die by natural selection because they’ve banned everyone who can participate. or they will become deep echo chambers. both of these are allowed and expected in the fediverse.
if you don’t like their community and how they run things, make your own alternative community and run it the way you like. that is within your control. it is not within your control to change the behavior of every random human on the internet that does something in a way you don’t like.
I think this take is just a tad dismissive though, because participating in a community and running a community are two entirely different degrees of participation.
It also places the burden of responsibility on the victim. If I get kicked out of a coffee shop because of my race or sexual orientation or gender identity, the solution shouldn’t be “just go make your own coffee shop if you don’t like how they run theirs.” There needs to be reasonable accountability.
The only accountability for a niche forum somebody else runs elsewhere is that you tell people how they suck and to not go there. You can’t send the cops on them like how you could call them on a coffee shop where they’re doing illegal discrimination.
If other people agree they suck they’ll block that community and leave for another that’s better run.
But in the context of Lemmy/Piefed/other Fediverse platforms, you’d expect admins to intervene in cases of community moderators gone rogue.
If that doesn’t occur, then defederate. But if an instance has a code of conduct that moderators are violating, that shouldn’t be the user’s problem.
I mean, yeah, some instances will have rules that community moderators must abide by. In that case you could have some recourse. Then if they still back them, you could go on a wide “defederate this instance” campaign!
But at a certain point, is it worth the energy?
Probably less energy than starting a community yourself and supporting it long-term, to be honest.
Eh, I think trying to get an entire instance defederated because of a grievance with a particular community there that they won’t back you up on might well be more effort personally.
you got banned from an internet forum. not kicked out from a physical place serving goods. these are not the same. you are not a victim.
you don’t have a right to force yourself onto an online community that doesn’t want you there, regardless of how reasonable you feel your opinions are.
Are you able to elaborate on this? Why do you feel that they are not somewhat equivalent?
In the real world, could you not just go to a new coffee shop (since both places are commonly found)?
If you are obeying the stated rules, why shouldn’t you have an expectation that you would be able to participate in either?
Edit: Downvoting a clarifying question is kinda… counter to this whole Community. Don’t be a goof.
Well, I wasnt being “a goof”. I think your framing attempts to steer this discussion in ways I dont agree with. Hence the downvote.
I also think commenting with mod privs is problematic for the conversation flow. You’ll get more honest conversation using an alt thats a non-mod account.
You said:
since both places are commonly found
That seems an unworkable proposition. Besides Reddit there are few other large anonymous boards. In your coffee shop metaphor its like being banned from a michelin 4 star coffee shop and being told theres a hot dog stand on the corner that serves coffee, so theres no possible issue with banning. There is no seperate-but-equal to be had here. The Worldnews or politics subs here for example arent easily replicated with a new set of rules in any other small similarly-focused sub. Subs that get large tend to stay large and get larger. There is a natural monopolizing effect. So I disagree that commonality is any sort of reasonable basis for comparison. I recognize that this is debateable, but worldnews, news, and politics are core to lemmy, so saying those subs can be operated in any way the mods there feel they want to works less well as they accrue influence and become the core Lemmy product. I suppose federation in general is messy.
You also said:
If you are obeying the stated rules
I really do appreciate that moderation is a hard thankless task and mods deals with profoud hatred and human ugliness and bigotry. Its toxic and poisonous. So thank you for your service. But–mods are human too and they wield a ban hammer in a biased fashion at times. The existence of this sub kind of proves this point, so I assume you agree somewhat. Often some mods (not you, as far as I know) end up editorializing and stretching the definitions of the rules to suit their own biases. For a while it was trivially easy to end up banned if you said something against the actions of the state of Israel, and it was branded by mods (like jordanblund in worldnews) as bigotry against an entire people, and loosely equated to being against global judaism or supporting terrorism. Its also pretty easy for a mod to ban a progressive from pushing back on centrists, both here and on reddit. Or if you defend equality and human rights for muslims in general, or treat a religion as a bundle of philosophical ideas to be studied. This place models all the biases out in the wild, and they dont always effctively serve the noble goals of the carefully moderated forum that we hope for. So obeying the stated rules, as you said, is not cut and dried when enforcement is flawed. Its another difficult balancing problem that could use examination.
This community was built (somewhat) from a sizeable bunch of people banned or pissed off by over-modding and astroturfing on reddit, but increasingly lemmy has started experiencing similar disseases. I get it, the mods are volunteers. Its an ugly and demanding job. But saying its simply about users following the rules discounts the nuance of the conversations. Underenforcement or light enforcement has to be part of the modding model or you become reddit, which I sure wouldnt want. I have started seeing threads that are clearly being brigaded for fascist, Russian or Israeli memes-- same as the enshitification that took over reddit. And its not like I’m not wading through r/nazi when I see these excesses, these are purportedly “normal” threads. So, theres another difficult problem the status quo doesnt recognize.
To add to that, there are whole industry of companies built on the idea of steering social media discourse. Much of that is by employees of those companies becoming mods. On reddit you arent even allowed to bring up the idea, and here we just ignore it. There have been some mods particularly on worldnews who have acted in extremely biased ways and made biased comments and then deleted them. Most mods are great volunteers, but a handfull abuse. It stands to reason that some are paid to abuse and steer. Its easy to hide your tracks if you’re a bad mod or paid mod. We users arent privy to any discipline or leveling done within the mod community. Maybe there is some, maybe not. Do mods police themselves? I’d guess not so much. Yes we see the modlog, but thats strictly a transaction log, insufficient to this use case. So, more problems.
So here we are, downvote explained. Not goofing.
All good, and this was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for and appreciate the answer. I didn’t really see anything that disagreed with what I asked though.
As I mentioned, some of those questions were unanswered by the original responder and some were just assumptive next steps based on what I was reading. They weren’t leading, they were clarifying and harder to answer and asked from another perspective. I try to ask (at least somewhat) challenging questions in order to get a more nuanced and informed take on topics and hope that asking them helps those that can explain as well. I’m on the side of bannings being generally bad for discourse and Communities as a whole. Permanent multi-Comminuty bans for small slights is even worse and makes Lemmy look thin-skinned and childish.
And to borrow the coffee analogy again, Reddit would be like Dunkin’ Doughnuts (in which nobody gives a fuck about you as long as you get your swill there and make them money) and Lemmy would be more like an ethically-sourced small-batch experimental coffee shop where some batches are great and some are dogshit (except some of the baristas are kind of dicks because the band on your tee shirt said something they didn’t like once). I don’t think either is perfect, but I like it here better.
I like it better here too.
Lemmy communities are not businesses, usually they are just hobby projects run by people in their free time. So a closer analogy is that posting in someone’s community is like being in their house (or garden). And when you’re in someone’s house they are free to throw you out for any reason.
I get that. It’s a solid analogy, but on the other hand you also have some people who run a dozen or more Communities. To borrow your analogy, these people claim whole unrelated neighbourhoods and permanently remove you from all of them for accidentally stepping on their lawn 3 towns over. This absolutely is a problem as I see it. It hurts discussion and discoverability.
Well this is where lemmy being federalised plays out. On Reddit, a community is basically completely captured by the first-movers if it has the name people are going to look up first. Lemmy allows people to compete with the same name, on different instances - and even on the same instance as the display name can be different to the original URL.
I agree that you can do that stuff, but most people don’t have the time or wish to do it. Instead, they just get turned off the Community (or even platform) altogether and just… leave.
Even if they do start their own Community, that’s not even a sure way to stop it. As I described above, I have been banned from other Communities for playing devils advocate in my own Community.
Its definitely a problem. One way to fix it would be for admins to be more strict with the moderators of local communities, and replace them if they go too far. But it seems most admins are quite hands off and prefer to let things run their course.
We almost need like… some kind of “Supreme Court” or Mod review system. One way or another, it’s a really hard problem to solve for certain.
in addition to what others said, it l matters who is making the rules.
in my own home i make my own rules and they are subject to my discretion and may change whenever I want. and even if someone is following all my stated rules if I don’t want them there, they aren’t allowed to be there.
following a community’s rules doesn’t guarantee anything and the person making the rules has a right to remove or keep whoever they want. you have no right or expectation to remain in a community if the community owner doesn’t want you there.
businesses and hoas and neighborhoods make the majority of their own rules but can be superseded by rules from the county, town, state, or federal government.
when a business runs afoul, a customer may bring a lawsuit to the higher authority. in lemmy communities, other than instance admins there are no higher authorities so you get what you get.
furthermore if we lived in a fully libertarian world where there were no higher authorities governing business (which is a closer analogy to lemmy) you would either have to deal with being discriminated against, or try to organize with other members of your community a boycott to pressure the business into behaving as you want through capitalism. you can do the same on lemmy. you can boycott a community or instance and try to guide others to better communities.
(WEEKLY) Lemmy’s Aggressive Banning Issue
I Comment - https://lemmy.world/modlog?commentId=18282336
Removed by mod
MFW
Mods should always take a light approach to modding and not think they’re the true defenders of (their perceived) true faith. That’s the problem with stack overflow, lemmy (that I’m now stepping away from in part for this reason and also the amount of insane people running the zoo), reddit. Oh, this is actual discussion that’s provocative. Maybe i should stop.
I didn’t remove it and I’m the only Mod here. WTF.
Ah. Looks like it was an admin… Well, that’s not generally how I work here unless you’re breaking a rule, and our rules are conversation-focused. I dunno what the etiquette for restoring it would be or if it would just be me pissing off an Admin which is probably not smart.
Yeah, I’m starting to think lemmy is a socialist experiment with bots to manipulate/radicalise people. A watered-down rt.com or sputnikglobe.com - access to which have been blocked in my country, but I guess, by having multiple websites with the news disguised as chat platforms would make it harder for countries to block. (Not that I agree with blocking them in the first place…)
Over zealous moderation behaviour is exactly how stack overflow quickly went downhill causing people to leave in their droves.
Also, you need to update the community blurb on the right - it refers to casual conversation at lemm.ee
Heh. I’m Canadian; I’ve got zero issues with socialism. Safety nets have helped me at various points in my life and many of my friends as well that, in the US system, would have been destroyed for their entire lives.
Updated the link in the side panel, thanks!
It’s nice that a community has started for ‘actual’ conversation - many people (bots esp) can’t handle opposing opinions - but it seems that if admins are going to step in (.ca admins?) then, it unfortunately defeats the whole purpose of the community.
First time I’ve ever seen it happen when it wasn’t explicitly spam or obvious trolling. I’m more confused about it than anything.
I got banned from worldnews@hexbear for quoting Douglas Adams and the mods wouldn’t accept my explanation, even after I showed them the quote. “It’s racist,” they said. Then, probably because the same mod runs both comms, I got banned from badposting@hexbear.
I don’t really care so much, but I remember it from time to time when I upvote something and it tells me “you’re banned.”
I commented “needs more jazz” on an overly-specific playlist for bees, and the sole !oddlyspecificplaylists@sh.itjust.works mod acted like I kicked their cat. PM’d them a bare link to the Wikipedia article for the Bee movie and was told to “die mad about it.”
I don’t think I understand what the mod was getting at whatsoever.
We live in a dumb world.
I think that communities don’t have to be for debate. Trying to force that seems fairly hostile to me.
Figuring out which slights are intentional or not is exhausting, unrewarding work and it’s absolutely easier to assume all of them are hostile. I’m ok with that. There is little value to a user you have to scrutinize and maybe, just maybe, they’re only ignorant and in need of education that you’re going to have to provide and maybe, just maybe, they’ll accept the lesson. Compared to a user that is clearly on board with a given community and how it’s run, it becomes a pretty easy choice.
I’ve been banned from a bunch of keto communities for downvotes. I’m definitely not there intended audience and was only seeing things via my everything view. They banned me, I blocked those communities. That’s fine. The only thing that even slightly bothers me is that it might skew their place on such an everything view and seems vote manipulation adjacent.
Oh, certainly not all Communities should be for debate, but some are explicitly designed to handle it. Plugging your ears and shutting out everyone who doesn’t toe the line can also be incredibly bad. Look at outwardly racist communities for instance. The way to change hearts and minds is inclusion, not exclusion.
I would also hesitate to say that disagreement is hostile. It CAN be, but it depends on how it’s handled on both ends of the discussion. Some people you can discuss with and get nuanced, some people flip out because you don’t value the same things in the same stack order.
Many of these discussions don’t rely on (or require) education, they require a reshuffling of priorities. People tend to ignore that other people value things on a different order and scale than they do and the attempt at education can come across as talking down to them. Doubly so for moral issues.
I don’t think you understood what I meant by education. No amount of priority shuffling (whatever that means) is going to teach a person why what they’ve done is a transgression. You didn’t really answer that in any meaningful way.
I find it interesting that you think some places need debate while acknowledging people react badly to it, especially if done poorly.
If a solution just requires everybody to change, it’s not a solution.
To explain, the priority-shuffling means that I value things in a different order. For example, a strict vegan may value not eating meat more than survival in a starvation situation. I value the survival more and would eat the meat - it’s a different stack order.
I value my family more than your family. You most likely hold the opposite stack order. That’s all I meant. This is where a lot of confrontations come in; people don’t understand or care about the order of other people’s stack and don’t understand that someone values X over Y. Hell, people don’t often understand their own stack.
That’s the issue and speaks to what I was getting at. I value an open and good-faith exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are not the norm. I’m all for people being gay even in the middle of a Southern Baptist church, for instance. It being a transgression doesn’t matter. If a taboo flies in the face of a logical and scientific position, then the taboo should probably go away, which may take tact, time, and effort.
People react poorly to anything position they hold that is morals-based, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Most worthwhile change is resisted, at least somewhat. You know that saying “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”? It’s most often because the position they got into was based on a moral stance, not logic and they’ve reinforced themselves over time (often with echo chambers that misrepresent opposing views).
If a solution just requires everybody to change, it’s not a solution.
If a solution requires just enough people to change, it’s may not be an easy solution, but may be a worthwhile one.
Priorities have very little to do with ignorance. Let’s try a different example that has a little more nuance than the church one and happens too often in the real world: touching somebody’s wheelchair without the their consent to “help” them. The person transgressing views themselves as considering the priorities of the person in the wheelchair. This is a problem of ignorance, not priorities. The person in the wheelchair should not have to deal with this let alone try to convince, educate, or care about how the other person feels or what they intended. That is the onus you expect of people that don’t share your opinions, to coddle/educate/etc you because you view your intentions as Right or Good or whatever. They don’t want the interaction and you think you have the right to force them into it. It’s the epitome of egotism. Anybody that disagrees gets labeled as as being in an echo chamber.
Your response to the comment about people is nitpicking. Changing individuals doesn’t provide a good ROI. Expecting them to do so on their own is wishful thinking. It isn’t a difficult solution; it is an impossible one.
Overall, you’re contrary and like arguing more than looking for better ideas. I think I get why you’re having difficulties with mods. I’m done, too. You have no intent to listen or learn. If that’s incorrect, prove it to the next person, not me.
Huh. And here I thought we were having a nice conversation.
I’d ask that you please consider that you may not have been as clear with your intended message as you may have thought, and not that the person speaking to you is just a bad-faith idiot in the future.
In the previous thread I linked above, I wrote a mini-guide for my opinion on how to handle downvotes:
-
Bad Faith Actor: Sees a post or a whole Community they don’t like. Goes in and systematically downvotes a bunch of stuff on purpose. Topics, responses… everything. Downvotes because they hate the community and everything it stands for. See 50 downvotes in your Community in one day? That’s these fuckers. Ban them. They are assholes and are vote manipulating. Probably ban them from related Communities for vote manipulation.
-
Normal User: May or may not comment in YOUR Community, especially if it’s image-based, but you can check their profile. The Community they are in may not even register to them as they will often only browse single posts, not a Community. Sees a single post that they don’t like out of thousands they see daily and downvotes it. Several months later, it may happen again. This is expected behaviour and is how an upvote / downvote system functions. Don’t ban these or you’re the asshole.
-
Brigade Users: A coordinated attack to downvote or spam a Community stemming from some other place. They downvote everything and often post garbage. 4 downvotes from disparate users are not a brigade, so don’t jump the gun. If they are verified to be Brigading, ban these people. They are dickheads and are vote manipulating. Probably ban them from related Communities for vote manipulation if not trying to seek an instance ban.
-
Lurker: (The overwhelming majority of users are this) Indistinguishable from a Normal user in votes, but may not comment. Dangerous in that they may be an alt or bot account. Be wary. Check their post history to see if they’re real people. If real, leave 'em alone. If empty, use your discretion. Don’t ban from related Communities.
-
Other: Downvotes accidentally when scrolling sometimes. These happen. May appear as a Lurker or a Normal User. Don’t ban these or you’re the asshole.
- Normal User: May or may not comment in YOUR Community, especially if it’s image-based, but you can check their profile. The Community they are in may not even register to them as they will often only browse single posts, not a Community. Sees a single post that they don’t like out of thousands they see daily and downvotes it. Several months later, it may happen again. This is expected behaviour and is how an upvote / downvote system functions. Don’t ban these or you’re the asshole.
If lemmy allowed for private/subscriber only communities I would agree with you. But when EVERYONE can see EVERYTHING in ALL, then we have a different dynamic. Suppose there is a niche community with 10 people who want to talk about something, but there are 1,000 people who don’t like that niche community. These 1,000 normal users will downvote something they don’t like without targeting it specifically - So the 10 people in the very niche community always get lots of downvotes, chilling their participation on a niche topic.
Incidental negativity can overwhelm niche discussion forums, especially with the ALL mechanic. The ideal solution would be for subscriber only forums, or allowing moderators to select specific posts for ALL, but in the current lemmy meta those niche communities need a way to create a welcoming space for their minority of members.
I do like the idea for sub-only Communities. I wonder if it’s on the dev list?
its on the 1.0 roadmap, “private communities” i think is the title
Vote choice should never, ever be a reason for banning, unless it’s a brigade. Most of the time, there are too many variables, nuance, or other things to consider that we can’t see. Without commentary, who can truly understand the full meaning behind a vote?
Other: Downvotes accidentally when scrolling sometimes. These happen. May appear as a Lurker or a Normal User. Don’t ban these or you’re the asshole.
Absolutely this happens to me. Especially if the fur babies are trampling me/seeking pets/using me as a bed.
-
The upvote/downvote system was always meant to be in relation to one agreeing/ disagreeing or liking/disliking with what one is interacting with, and I do believe that it is the inescapable function of it, regardless of how much thought one puts into it or not. One would have to find a bizarre thought process that could result in one avoiding that inevitability. Like someone who chooses to upvote what they disagree with or downvote what they agree with. Doesn’t sound conceivable. Maybe in an algorithm driven platform one could use this as a thought experiment to find the opposite of oneself or one’s own opposition in suggested content, but here without an algorithm to drive it, not even that is conceivable.
In regards to people piling on and using downvotes in a form of a brigade attack, similar to review bombing pieces of media… While I dislike this profoundly and find it enormously toxic, it is still within the realm of public expression. If one means to silence it, one means to suppress the freedom for others to express themselves as both individuals and as a group. As much as I find it despicable or toxic in a lot of contexts, I can’t bring myself to justify the act of banning this form of expression in showing discontent. As I’m sure we’ve all found moments in which we agreed with a form of public outrage expression such as this one. But we’re still all being baited into pack mentality which is an essential feature to maximise engagement in algorithmic platforms. And it is why it is a key requirement for me now that if I’m to join any platform that this feature needs to be non-existent. No algorithm driven platforms for me, thanks. If the user is not driving the experience, I find it repulsive, and so should anyone else.
As to banning in general… The user as an individual can block whomever they so desire, including entire instances. That is the control that anyone should be allowed to have as an individual. But not banning. Moderating or not, I find banning a suppression tool that can be used to suppress legitimate criticism, and it does happen all the time. Everywhere. So, I’m opposed to banning. Even in extreme cases of crude language and abhorrent and toxic behaviour. As I find that banning is sweeping the problem under the rug and not allowing it to be seen, identified, analysed and to further uncover the root causes of that said problem. Be that of an individual or any type of mob mentality. Back when I left reddit, I didn’t leave because there were too many shitty users, I left because they were being rewarded with attention without examination. And the algorithm there was what did that and still does. There and everywhere else.
I’m 40. Even recently someone here reminded me of the concept of “Eternal September”. I hadn’t heard it in a long time. But I’ve seen it happen many times. The absence of an algorithm alone is enough to build a fence to stave off some of the largest problems of modern online spaces.
For anyone who doesn’t know, not even the incel community was a toxic one when it started. In the late 90’s it was just people sharing their insecurities in those forums. And it was composed of both male and female users seeking to find connection through the act of sharing their insecurities in an attempt to find a way out of loneliness. Cut to now and what the hell happened? I was too young back then to parse through the nuances and complexities of what was going on those forums. But one thing that I always pondered was if whatever happened there was the prelude to Gamergate. Because I think Gamergate was what “trained” algorithms to reinforce toxicity because it tracked the maximising of engagement that occurred, and then reinforced it because maximising engagement was what it was supposed to do. And just like people swept under the rug the incel community gone terribly wrong by dismissing it as some trivial internet phenomena, people did the same with Gamergate as they dismissed it as some trivial dumb gamer thing. And now look at where we are. But the fact is that this was and has been growing for a long time, people just didn’t bother to assess it, and banning this to the outer margins was one of the reasons it grew. And then the algorithms came and rewarded and emboldened it all.
If I had to sum it up I would say… Modern civilization isolates people, which generates loneliness, which generates resentment for others and an enormous need for connection, which then finds connection in resemblance in the loneliness and resentment of others online, with the internet not solving the loniless that is seething underneath of it all and even reinforcing it. It’s a loop. And it is not secular to men or young men, it’s everyone without a social life and real connections that gets caught in this loop. And the algorithimc influence only accelerates it.
This all to say that banning people is another one of the contributors that leads people down darker and darker paths to find somebody that will listen to them. As uncomfortable as it might be to encounter this phenomena, I want all this in plain sight, and I want everyone of sound mind to try to engage and try to disarm what is causing the people in question to spiral down.
I know it’s not pleasant nor easy, but if we avoid it, the result will be even more unpleasant and harder to deal with.
Just take a look at the world now… Loneliness was weaponized by the indecent, because the decent refused to engage. And it is still going on and on.
And the antidote can’t be the continuous matching of resentment nor to allow the conditions that set this in motion to remain unacknowledged.
As a moderator of computer security forums (cryptography specifically) who deal with both cranks and aggressive spammers - you just can’t do without bans.
The only long term solution is to ensure there’s always more than one community with separate leadership, so there’s accountability for mods through pressure from the users. The threat to leave must feel credible.
Yeah, I agree that the complexity is larger in practice than just saying no bans. And I’ve even commented recently that I’ve heard directly from coders that it is easier to code and built the platforms than it is to manage the user base. I also said I’m not a coder so I can’t make that claim. But I’ve heard it first hand.
But I still can’t agree in principle with the blank nature of banning. I have to say that I’ve never been banned from any online space. Not once. Not on reddit, not on Lemmy, and I hope that continues now on Piefed. So, I’m not defending this principle on a basis that I’ve experienced a ban in its true opressive form like some people are sharing in this thread. Because I haven’t. But I have in the past taken a stand in defence of people that I vehemently disagreed with, because I believe however heinous their comments or choice of words were, I want them to be out in the open. That is how the accountability can actually occur. And that is how they get to be challenged. Not cast out without reasoning. If they leave to set up shop somewhere where only the heinous will follow, that’s how we allow this wound to fester and spread its putrefaction. And no form of accountability or consequence actuality took place. None whatsoever.
And it was extremely bad news when I saw the freedom of speech starting to become a proud talking point of conservative and retrograde outlets more than a decade ago. Which was in my impression at the tail-end of Gamergate. ( But did it ever end though? SJW versus Anti-SJW just got rebranded as Woke versus Anti-Woke) But sill, I think back then was when all the grifters that are now famous spotted this great online grift : Say something obnoxious or questionably dubious, then let in the brigade that want to tell them they can’t say that, so that they can sound the horn and call the free speech absolutists and cry out that freedom of speech is under threat and nearly gone. All while they have the freedom to recycle and repeat this nonsense over and over.
This type of political play has been around for a long time…
But here, online, it’s truly the same method of the old online Troll. I mean, I even found some trolling in the past absolutely ingenious and even hilarious in some cases. But I guess a lot of people didn’t learn the old ungated ways of the internet, where we would spot the Troll and know not to feed it. As the online spaces became more deranged it became harder to distinguish and we went from playing “spot the troll” to playing “is this satire?” really quickly.
But still, anyone perceptive knew these rising grifters only wanted to defend this right so they could get to opress the rights of others and control the narrative all while cashing in on furthering the protective barrier for the wealthy class to keep hoarding more wealth and control. I believe some were even being sponsored to do so. And there’s been some evidence uncovered of some extreme far right groups even directly funding this type of bait in Europe. I mean, it was always clear as day, but they managed to garner a lot of suppport from gullible people who thought they were being virtuous in the defense of freedom. But they were surrendering control to the faction and people who want to control speech the most. Because they always have wanted to control it the most all along.
But this was only possible because some people really intended on policing speech instead of disarming the nonsense with facts through the same freedom. As righteous as their motivations might’ve been, this was a truly misguided step.
The righteous path cannot mimic the behaviours and practices of oppression and tyranny. It will only bring about the same cycles of resistance. As it obviously has.
Nothing that is merely enforced is ever truly learned, and this way true progress is never achieved.
In regards to people piling on and using downvotes in a form of a brigade attack, similar to review bombing pieces of media… While I dislike this profoundly and find it enormously toxic, it is still within the realm of public expression. If one means to silence it, one means to suppress the freedom for others to express themselves as both individuals and as a group. As much as I find it despicable or toxic in a lot of contexts, I can’t bring myself to justify the act of banning this form of expression in showing discontent. Moderators of communities, particularly with particular topic focuses will need to ban people to deal with spam, abusive behaviour, trolling, off-topic conduct - to ultimately maintain the focus of their community.
It absolutely is in the form of public expression, but if I see someone downvoting all the posts on a community I run - and they never contribute, I will use the powers granted to me as a steward of that community to ban them. Mass-downvoting can be a problem for small communities as it can bury threads.
As for the rest of your post, I simply don’t believe it’s my responsibility in the communities I run, that have particular purposes, to play house to toxic and otherwise repulsive people with behavioural issues because of the societal impacts of social media engendering loneliness and maladaptive behaviour as a type of cope. Most communities will have a topic-focus and need to ban people just on that basis. Or for spam. Or for trolling. Or for abusive behaviour.
I understand you being protective of the communities you manage and that it’s a delicate task to begin with. And an effort that so often goes unrecognised and unappreciated.
But please, don’t feel accused or worse, insulted, because I oppose banning. My opposition to it is not a personal stance against you or anyone else.
In relation to upvotes/downvotes, I use them to generate a quick dislplay of engagement in the communities I follow. But even though I do it, I still find that it is always a lazy form of engagement that is both unappealing and uninteresting and on top of it all it is a system that lacks clarity and it’s easy to hijack with bots and brigade hits. And it is that way because it requires very little effort and time to do so. So I always found that we could do without that system and I would much prefer it.
In relation to banning, I think it is possible to devise other methods of guiding online spaces. I never like when I see a comment or a post removed. Never. I would much prefer that in the case of mods, a system of different flags used for flagging different circumstances was set in place. Like one for trolling, another one for spam, a different one for toxic and insulting use of language, and especially the one for the ban that upsets me the most out of all the banning choices, the off topic one. As I’ve said in another comment in this thread, I’ve never been banned from any community in any platform. But I have had comments removed where I was merely responding to other people and a new branch of conversation emerges amongst a few of us, only for our comments to be removed and our conversation ended with total disregard or respect for the conversation we were having. This is insulting to everyone involved, as any good conversation can lead us anywhere and these are not in person or broadcast events running on a clock. People can respond at their own leisure, and anyone who is not interested can just collapse the comment branch and move to the next branch within the thread. This way of fencing topics is a community killer and I’ve left quite a few communities over the years because of this type of moderation alone and not the community itself. It is not of my interest to be in a space where people are shut down, especially when everyone involved is being respectful and we’re doing what these platforms were really intended for, which is to take in different perspectives from all types of people from anywhere in the world. If not for that, I have a life and this is of no interest to me to waste my time on if I’m not reaching and accessing people and realities that are not my own.
But this is my opinion. And by definition I’m a commenter not a poster. And I’ve never been interested in moderating. Because I like the equalitarianism of being amongst others sharing ideas without any disparity to differentiate us. Which is another reason as to why we could do without the lazy upvote/downvote system which interferes without engaging.
But I am going to repeat what I said at the beginning… I understand you being protective of the communities you manage and it’s a really delicate task to begin with. And it truly is an effort that so often goes unrecognised and unappreciated.
So, regardless of what our differences of opinion might be, I’m still grateful for your efforts and I’m glad that there’s still people around that care enough to try a hand at what is a hard bargain from the get go.
The upvote/downvote system was always meant to be in relation to one agreeing/ disagreeing or liking/disliking with what they are interacting with, and I do believe that it is the inescapable function of it, regardless of how much thought one puts into it or not.
Zucbook did that, and that poison spread. It was intended everywhere else for whether it furthers discussion or not.
Am I misunderstanding your comment? Facebook has literally never had a dislike button ever. It is the single most requested feature since 2007.
In that upvote means agree. Then they added the other reactions.
Mods can see who up/down votes? Why?
Mods can, but also lemvotes exists as a tool for anyone to see it.
Why? To cultivate a high-trust culture.
People sadly use their alts to supercharge their votes.
“online safe space” is an oxymoron,
Idk I check the modlogs off phtn i think ocasionally, I feel like if it was that easy to get banned here my other accounts and this one would be banned from somewhere
IMHO, if you want an echo chamber then make a private community. Public spaces should be open to all, and banning used as a last resort - and even then only as a tool to force a “cooling off” period, so temporary bannings only (at least at first). People can just create another login to harass your group anyway, so permanent bans seem stupid & pointless. If someone just won’t stop even after multiple month-long bans, then permaban if you wish, but they’ll be back under another name out of resentment and anger.
Maybe Lemmy could use a “controversial commenter” flag - not sure if should be set by mods or voting history - which people could use to block threads from those types of people if they don’t want to deal with such. This would allow those who want to debate to do so, and those who don’t to choose to be oblivious of such discussion.
This has been an off the cuff response, so not thought out much. I expect to be destroyed for such stupid ideas, but hope they’ll prompt some useful discussion.
I hadn’t heard of a controversial tag. They have them for threads, so it could be cool to get one for users as well. It would solve a lot of issues for sure if it was implemented well! Though on Lemmy, it may wind up applying to most users as everyone seems to have an opinion or two that’s controversial to like… everyone.
for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil’s advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct.
Please understand that the practice of playing devils advocate has never been to foster discussion. Whatever value it had has been completely obliterated in this misinformation age. Presenting flawed arguments as a rhetorical device is generally a waste of your audience’s time at best. At worst it makes you appear to be an ignorant troll.
Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
Contextually yes. If 1 person’s downvotes represent a significant fraction of the total votes, and that person on average downvotes more than upvotes, I would argue a ban is appropriate because clearly that user does not enjoy engaging the content posted.
Do downvotes represent a “disagree” button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
Always has been.
Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
Nothing. It’s not a problem.
Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
Ever heard of the Knights of New? Downvotes filter low quality, irrelevant, and illegal content.
Is there a way to build a “safe space” without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
People really need to take responsibility for their media diets and stop conflating every group consensus with an echo chamber. You are in control of what communities you participate in. One can find communities built around almost any idea or belief.
If you go to a community formed around a concept and play devils advocate… you deserve what you get. That doesn’t make it an echo chamber. Just makes you captain Ahab.
the practice of playing devils advocate has never been to foster discussion
Well, it’s what I’ve been using it for and my debate teacher before me, so that’s not a correct statement. You can see here for how it’s considered a valuable tool in a discussion or educational context. It’s also used in a legal context quite frequently.
Presenting flawed arguments as a rhetorical device is generally a waste of your audience’s time at best
The arguments aren’t flawed, they’re often ones that there is no easy answer to, present a different value system, or cover an angle that the initial speaker hadn’t considered. If anything, they’re a way to become more correct by covering bases that hadn’t been prior.
Nothing. It’s not a problem.
There are a large number of people that would disagree with that statement as it leads to unjust bannings. Kind of the impetus for this thread.
Downvotes filter low quality, irrelevant, and illegal content.
They can do that, yes (although I would say that reporting is a much more appropriate response than just a downvote for illegal posts). It’s not used solely for that in practice however. It also is used to bury community-appropriate content by those ideologically opposed to the content (for example, vegans vs. people in the carnivore diet sub). It could be burying valuable, community-appropriate posts. Downvotes can also be accidental or malicious (in the case of brigading or bot farms). Downvoting something you disagree with also doesn’t make it any of the three things you listed.
If you go to a community formed around a concept and play devils advocate… you deserve what you get. That doesn’t make it an echo chamber. Just makes you captain Ahab.
If you go to a Community and mid-discussion post something factual that a mod doesn’t care for without being malicious, you aren’t playing devil’s advocate, you are simply replying to a thread and using the platform as intended. These are discussion platforms and using them to solely remove any other position is, in fact, the definition of an echo chamber.
The stance of “don’t question anyone on my side for any reason because we’re right” is neither healthy, nor particularly intelligent. If I were a sub based around a controversial idea, I’d build a Steelman FAQ as a stickied thread and direct detractors to it and leave it open for debate. I would also add to the Steelman as more and better arguments flowed in. If my side of an issue were correct, it would be a helluva thing to reference and would allow us to keep controversial discussion to a thread that people could avoid if they wish.
Well, it’s what I’ve been using it for and my debate teacher before me, so that’s not a correct statement. You can see here for how it’s considered a valuable tool in a discussion or educational context. It’s also used in a legal context quite frequently.
That’s different from fostering discussion. Discussion is open ended. Devils Advocate is fundamentally about substantiating the opposite argument. I didn’t say it lacked value all together. I’m saying you’re using it in the wrong context, and the results are downvotes and non-engagement from your audience. Especially if they believe you’re sincere.
You’re conflating Socratic reasoning with devils advocacy and citing an anecdotal experience as evidence. Socratic reasoning explores limitations of ideas. Devils advocate argues for the sake of argument as a form of apologetic exercise.
If you want to discuss censorship of dissenting opinions that’s a valid discussion that you are severely undermining by mislabeling your arguments as devils advocacy.
If you argue against something that is incorrect, you are not playing the devils advocate; by definition.
Not sure if I agree with that. I’m not basing my use of devil’s advocate on classical debate models. I would, in fact, argue that those aren’t relevant in modern society for the most part.
In our rules, I state:
DO: Be a “Devil’s Advocate” if there’s no opposition and you can see some arguments for the other side you’d like to see addressed. You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points on a view.
Elsewhere I’ve spoken about something I feel devil’s advocate helps with - namely that you can be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.
This is an absolutely garbage example, but it’s one from my real life. My mother-in-law is an atheist, as am I. When I asked her how she arrived there, her reasoning was (in full, and apologies to anyone reading this stupid shit) “Religion is gay.”
Now… I agree with her about there not being a God, but not her reasoning. Asking clarifying DA questions and having her answer her own questions helped her express her actual opinion and not just… the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard in a religious discussion. I do the same here when someone expresses something that leaves major chunks in their argument or opinion, even if I agree.
Asking strong questions to fill gaps in my opinions and belief structure are also called a “Steelman” (opposite of a strawman) which are of incredible value in logic courses.
The semantics of “devils advocate” aside, what I’m saying is, if the audience doesn’t like what you’re saying, they’re going to rightfully downvote/ban you. I genuinely think that those are valid and valuable options for both the community and you as a speaker.
Is business communications we learned about “rhetoric” in terms of ethos, logos, and pathos. Socratic reasoning, Devils advocate, etc… those are all logic based communications. But you have no pathos(credibility), cuz they don’t know you, and the emotional appear (ethos) is likely not in your favour.
I got downvoted yesterday for speculating the direction AI is going. People don’t like AI so they downvote me cuz they don’t want it to be true. Wrong audience for that discussion.
On reddit I got banned from r/WNBA, cuz I commented on a post that went to /all, saying gameplay with CC in it was fundamentally more interesting to watch (and that without her it was boring -that’s probs what caught be mod hammer). Wrong audience for that discussion.
If you want to go into a community and change their views on a consensus they’ve formed, than you need more than just logos. It usually takes a known community member (pathos) appealing to the community intrinsically (ethos) to shift these kinds of community consensus.
Perhaps that’s not where you’re coming from with this topic. But I’m here to push back on the allegation there is a banning issue. IMO downvotes and bans are good things. 50% when I’m downvoted I’m saying something wrong… the other half I’m talking to the wrong people.
I’ve never seen a post that has so many poorly incorrect opinions stated as facts. Brava.
I am very new to this community, and I don’t have much experience with niche internet community dynamics, so I wouldn’t take my words with too much weight; I just like to contribute where I can.
After years of watching the upvote/downvote system play out, I have don’t think downvoting is particularly useful at all. In theory, it allows a community to self-moderate and remove harmful posts. In practice, people use it to downvote things they disagree with and it encourages alienation.
I have had moments where I downvoted something, remembered that this was Lemmy, removed the downvote and wrote a carefully worded response instead, because that is the best way to connect through the internet. Will it work every time? No. Are you a better person for trying? Yes.
It is much more difficult to challenge someone in a healthy manner. This challenging process gets completely avoided by downvoting. One downvote click and any attempt at empathy is gone. But that all depends on whether you want to bother.
Harmful people get banned anyways, so how do downvotes assist that process?
It may be that downvoting prevents people from writing enflamed responses but I’m unsure. My view is that upvotes and downvotes should not be the same as likes and dislikes for the exact echo chamber reasoning in OP. There’s needs to be room for dissonance.
downvote things they disagree with and it encourages alienation.
How is net any different than people simply not upvoting? Wouldn’t people simply upvote everything else more? Wouldn’t we end up with the same vote rankings just different numbers?
wrote a carefully worded response instead, because that is the best way to connect through the internet.
As you identify later, I don’t necessarily want to connect or correct every incorrect thing I see on the internet. I agree this presents an opportunity for self growth, but there’s also diminishing returns. Engaging every single person is obviously not realistic.
One downvote click and any attempt at empathy is gone.
The engagement is gone. One can empathize enough with someone they disagree with to recognize the futility in engaging with them.
Harmful people get banned anyways, so how do downvotes assist that process?
-
Downvotes raise the ranking of superior content, improving user experience. This includes low quality, irrelevant, or illegal content. This effect is immediate and does not require moderation.
-
Downvotes provide a temperature check and a frame of reference. You can see the consensus of the community without having to read way too many comments. Without downvotes you can only ascertain the opinions of people who took the time to respond.
-
Eliminating downvotes is largely used by highly moderated subreddits (r/conservative for instance). The ones that most accurately fit the definition of echo chambers and who exist to perpetuate an agenda not foster discussion.
TLDR: I do agree that engaging people in good faith is the best thing… but I also think downvotes provide value.
How is net any different than people simply not upvoting? Wouldn’t people simply upvote everything else more? Wouldn’t we end up with the same vote rankings just different numbers?
Picture this: you post something that you genuinely enjoy and the second it is posted somebody comes along and downvotes your content because they didn’t like it (not because it didn’t fit the community guidelines). Your content is now in oblivion and you are actively discouraged from posting further in the community. This is what I mean by alienation. It damages diverse opinions in the community.
Is the community better and more democratic that way?
Eliminating downvotes is largely used by highly moderated subreddits (r/conservative for instance). The ones that most accurately fit the definition of echo chambers and who exist to perpetuate an agenda not foster discussion.
I really like this point. I think you bring up an interesting topic about downvotes being a form of expression, and that banning them equates to a loss of freedom.
Engaging every single person is obviously not realistic.
It is not realistic, which is why I am not suggesting that. I would say a better method would be to avoid internet arguments and only engage if you are in a good place to do it constructively. I think niche communities can be the one place where disagreements are not completely futile.
Picture this…
I don’t need to picture it cuz that’s happened to me dozens of times.
A) Gotta get over it. Post engagement can literally come down to timing.
B) Negative scored content rebounds all the time. It’s hyperbole to say 1 person can kill any post.
I would say a better method would be to avoid internet arguments and only engage if you are in a good place to do it constructively
Some things to not justify a response. Nobody is entitled to my engagement. The phrase “No response, is a response.” very much translates to downvotes.
banning them equates to a loss of freedom.
It equates to a loss of information. The people who downvote and don’t reply aren’t going to start replying if downvotes are removed. That leaves ludicrous statements on the same playing field as mediocre ones.
-
