Recently, we merry mods have been noticing many-a-comments being in the report queue for perceived negativity (the aim of the community being to provide “a break from the incessant negativity and rage”). What actions should we do about these, if any? Do we need a newsome another-rule for this?
Here’s what I think: Some skepticism and scrutiny is always quite needed knowledge—especially against information that’s actually untrue/misleading—and any bars I can think of for removing negative comments would apply to reasonable skepticism as well. Thus, the mod team is asking y’all to drop some bars!
Edit
Assorted examples of reported comments
Actually, you’ve missed the mark. It’s not whining about an advancement, it’s legitimate criticism of the US health industry. He’s just saying what we all know to be true which is that regardless of technological improvements, lifesaving care will continue to be ruinously expensive for those that are able to access it and gatekept from many others.
If you have a problem with comments like these undermining celebration of scientific progress, then maybe you should think about the structural political issues that lead people to disillusionment and cynicism rather than labeling people as conspiracy theorists.
You know “big red“ voted for Trump. It’s a cute story, but I hope he gets what he voted for In the end
It’s too bad that curing patients is not a sustainable business model. Even if this did work we would only ever see it developed if you had to take it twice a month for the rest of your life in order to survive.
Edit: sorry, I just noticed this is in Uplifting News. So, let’s be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse and governments will start trying to take care of people.
Nobody said anything about ICE, we’re talking about the military known for bombing weddings in multiple middle eastern countries and then bombing ambulances when they respond.
If you have the money to commit atrocities in a dozen countries at once, you have money to spare.
That’s .world for you; complaining about Reddit while trying to recreate it exactly
It’s very sad to see hype like this. They only had 30 enrolled, this was just a safety study, and while the data looks promising, there is certainly not enough statistical power, which is why there is no approval yet.
Shame on the BBC. If you are going to quote invesigators, you should state that they have paid consultancy deals with UniQure. The same two people were equally excited about a Roche therapy years ago…
But UniCure stock went up 200% today, which is the point.
You must log in or register to comment.
Remove. It’s already unwelcome per the community info.
Furthermore, political and “orphan crushing machine” type posts should also be removed.
do you mean posts that are an “orphan crushing machine” or comments that say the post is an “orphan crushing machine”?
these seem like serious discussions that should be had in either way. one person going “I know it when I see it” is going to be highly inaccurate and if commenters can’t talk it out nobody can give the info that would be needed to make a decision.
I’m not a regular or anything. Just don’t want lose my comment priveledges if I pop in and go “hey guys I know there’s a darker side to this particular good news”
I’m not a regular or anything. Just don’t want lose my comment priveledges if I pop in and go “hey guys I know there’s a darker side to this particular good news”
But… genuinely, why?
Have you taken a look at the rules for this community? (Or were you just popping in now to comment?)
This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today’s news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity’s capacity for good
How does “hey guys I know there’s a darker side to this particular good news” help to foster that goal? In fact, how does that not work against that goal? If it is closer to the latter than the former, then perhaps you have a genuine difference in opinion where you disagree (strongly?) with the very premise of this community’s existence? At which point why not simply block it and move on to others that are more worth your time, to have the kinds of discussions that you would enjoy more, and cause less friction that neither you nor the people that this community will attract seemingly want?
Because I do actually enjoy having this on my main feed. I like positive content, I just really don’t like when negative content is repackaged to be hope-porn. Makes me feel more dismal than if I hadn’t seen it at all. Unfortunately I don’t usually have positive things to add verbally, and if you say that’s a Me problem then I say: Fair. I want to be better.
For adding context to a post, it helps to have the viewpoints of somebody who might be closer to a topic? I’d rather hear a sad correction from somebody who knows than be fed bullshit. Pretty sure most people would. And that’s not even the pessimist in me talking. I’m just pretty certain there’s enough legit good things in the world to report on that we shouldn’t have to lie.
All this to stress that I don’t think I’m the arbiter of truth or not. Rereading my comment I definitely was talking like I was. Which was stupid. But I would rather encounter this community under conditions where somebody can say “hey this is complicated or bad actually”. If it looks like that’s not on the table, I’m sure I will block it and you will have lost nothing. But keeping this sub in my feed is worth leaving my 2 cents and risking sounding like an asshole
Fwiw I offer no judgement here against either your desires or those or this community, just wondering if factually they are a match (e.g. there is no need imho for everyone to be positive all the time… except when commenting in this community, of course - it’s like if you want Thai food then you go to a Thai restaurant, not a fish and chips joint, you know what I mean?). And I am struggling to understand your point. I sorta already know what you mean about forced positivity, which I don’t think this community is necessarily about so much as an absence of negativity - and most especially schadenfreude.
Hrm, and what you describe about people pointing out that a story is bullshit, I have to agree with you there. It seems that rather a post should be removed rather than a sad rebuttal if the former contains misinformation. Sorry if I misunderstood this earlier. Otoh, two lefts do not make a right, and perhaps the rebuttal should likewise follow the rules of the community, just as the (hypothetical here) OP should have as well?
You are not stupid, or at least not more than myself:-P. Ultimately, most of us are wrong about something or another. That’s why it’s good to have a place to duck our heads into a place where we can discuss things - even about being wrong - without the negativity (and it is very much worth mentioning once again, especially the schadenfreude) that is so prevalent elsewhere.
Fwiw, I highly doubt that comments saying literally “hey this is complicated or bad actually” were those under discussion? Again, sorry if I misunderstood something here. I got the sense that it was more like “El0n Mu5k can suck my big fat d$#_” that do nothing to “strengthen the belief in humanity’s capacity for good”. THAT afaict is schadenfreude, even if it was offered as an attempted rebuttal to some post. The attempt of a commentor at the latter does not by itself excuse them from having to follow the same rules as the hypothetical poster?
So I think we ended up in agreement here. But again, perhaps either I or even both of us may have missed something here:-).
Okay, thanks. That’s fair, I guess that’s why OP made this post and why we’re talking, right? Yeah. I definitely mean forced positivity that we’re not supposed to question. I’m onboard with trying to remove schadenfreude though. It makes sense that there are people who just get a kick out of ruining things for people. That results in negativity and also misinformation sometimes too.
I guess that’s what OP is proposing, but they’re asking everyone for criteria to judge a post by for removing it. If I’m being heard and they did decide to allow discussion in the comments about what is or isn’t right about the post, yeah it would make sense to have that discussion also try to stay positive. Assuming people coming to the comments know to do that. As for how to keep a good tone over the internet when pointing something out, I don’t think I know how to. I can’t advocate for that because I tend to have pretty bad tone most of the time. But it seems like a sensible thing to require, you know, constructive criticism?
You’re right about the comments in question though. I saw the comment ahead of me talk about prohibiting “politics and orphan crushing machines” and needed more context. Maybe I shouldn’t have assumed they meant people who use the phrase “orphan crushing machine” to point out that a post isn’t really positive. That would be silly. I think I was projecting my experience with Reddit onto this community.
Yeah, I didn’t think you were far off. I wish I could give some better insight to OP though instead of just “here’s how I use the comm plz don’t ban me”
I don’t frequent this community, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, but I’m not seeing many bars/criteria which is what is being requested so I’ll throw in my two cents.
\1. If it is reasonable context or updates the average person would want/need, then it should be allowed.
Examples:
“It’s great the old lady recovered from her fall down the stairs, but unfortunately, a few hours after this article, she fell down again : (”
“She fell down the stairs because the step height was inconsistent, that needs to be fixed ASAP.”
\2. If it is pointed, hostile, or drumming up anger, it should NOT be allowed.
Examples:
“It’s the Radical Escalator Group that weakened stair legislation!”
“She should have been more careful. This is clearly on the old lady.”
\3. If it is dismissive of the good news or tries to make people feel bad for enjoying the good news, it should NOT be allowed.
Examples:
“Sure SHE recovered, but what about the hundreds of stair fall victims who don’t?”
“How does this help anyone?”
“If you don’t check the stairs you use and report bad stairs, this is your fault, and you shouldn’t be celebrating her recovery.”
\4. General negativity that does not needlessly effect others should be allowed.
Examples:
“My grandma fell down the stairs too. Hoping for a recovery”
“My stairs are all messed up too, but sadly I rent, so I can’t fix them…”
“This will likely happen again. We should make sure the needed resources for recovery are available, or the next one might not end so happily.”
I do think the only punishment should be removal and a warning, but I do not mod, so I’ll leave that discussion to the experts.
Edit: formatting x2
I agree with this. There will still end up being a good chunk of moderator discretion, but maybe we can come up with some checks for that? Something that distributes the decision making power beyond just one mod.
Remove and no ban. If you don’t like removing the ever increasing bad attitudes of humans then stop being a mod
I am once once again asking for your bars—what should be the bar/criteria for removal?
I think we should ask for and respect the decision of the community instead of imposing our own judgements. And of course, we still remove personal attacks (not that your admittedly negative-ish comment counted as one /gen).
Personal attacks are pretty subjective. As are the “uncivil” rules. But I think context really matters. If I told you that I thought you should go kill yourself, which I am not, that would definitely be Something I should be banned for.
Name calling is a good comment to remove, but only if the other party is 100% innocent. I wouldn’t want anyone banned for calling me a cunt. Just let people slap fight.
Blatant racism, sexism, bigotry, those get removed, multiples are a ban, but you can’t take the reported reason as fact.
Modding is rough, I get it. Do less modding. We won’t burn it down.
Sure, here’s an opinion.
Banning is permanent and shouldn’t be first or immediate response. Repeat offenders that cross some quality or quanity threshhold may deserve that, but you should adopt power rangers rules and seek proportional responses, and only escalate as a response where possible.
Bans should be transparent, contestable, and consistent in their application. However fair or unfair the rules you settle on, the perception of that consistency and impartiality influences the communitiea reaction. Too gentle and your community’s purpose blurs into something unintended, too harsh and your users will flee for greener pastures.
Asking instead of dictating is the right approach in my opinion so I think you’re aimed in a good direction.
Three strikes is where I would start, but maybe some strikes count for more than others? This is a hard problem and the answer will change over time. In cases where you can’t be consistent though, you must be transparent to salvage the trust you’re eroding.
I agree with removing all of those comments. Comments that point out factual inaccuracies should be allowed, but comments that are some variety of This Is Bad, Actually or We Should Be Talking About X Instead should not. As a general rule, comments should only be made if a reasonable, non-radicalized person would consider them uplifting. Posts that are not uplifting should be downvoted and posters who primarily post non-uplifting stuff should be warned and eventually banned.
I don’t know why a lot of people are vehemently dismissing instabans as an option (as if it were on the table). We are NOT going to instaban anyone for anything, except for spamming/bludgeoning but even then it’d be a tempban. Is there something in the original post that suggests we’re going to instaban?
I come here for respite from the cynicism and darkness and would rather not see those kinds of comments. But I don’t know about them being entirely removed in case they contain clarifications or context.
I think commenters should make more of an effort to reflect the tone of the community if they do feel the need to criticise the post and I think mods should put these kind of comments behind a filter like for nsfw posts.
I think a filter would be perfect…if stuff gets flagged enough, behind the filter it goes. Everyone’s happier and it sorts out the microdebating about where the line is about what’s helpful context and what isn’t.
i’ve never seen any comment with more than two flags that weren’t supposed to be removed, though
I think it’s a valiant idea, but a lotta people don’t necessarily look at the community before engaging to even take specific community rules into account. Especially if the post title is inflammatory in one way or another.
Rules about how you must behave that extend beyond generally not being a bad actor just confuse newcomers and may turn them off entirely to the idea, even though the intention is not bad.
True, and upvoted btw, but then all the more reason to remove comments and ultimately even ban people if need be (for repeated and/or more egregious offences), not out of any unfriendliness and rather our of a desire to fulfill the very intent of this community, even when people just passing by refuse to bother to read the rules.
This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today’s news cycle.
If people are turned off by enforced positivity, they are welcome to block the community, but less welcomed to ignore the needs of any community that simply wants to exist in peace.
Similarly there are women-only spaces, and LGBTQIA+ spaces, etc. where the needs of people just passing by are treated as being of considerably less value than those inside of it, who just want a moment to breathe without having to justify their existence to someone else who refuses to understand, or even someone who is legitimately “just asking questions”, but like… do that at another time, in some other place, you know?
(I can’t see the report queue so am speaking entirely theoretically here and could be missing something from that context. We both seem to be in agreement that it is good to be kind, just differing on how to enact that i.e. who needs it more, in this space.)
Enforcement is the bigger issue than the rule, too. Immediate removal/banishment is too heavy handed. I personally rather dislike how uncommon it is for a written warning to be given for a first time minor offense. A polite reminder of the rules (maybe as a pinned comment on bigger, active posts) is better than immediate mod action that generally also comes with zero communication. And if you do a removal, telling the user why goes a long way.
Also good to keep in mind that there’s a lotta anarchists here on Lemmy and I can only assume they, like I do, don’t really like authority so even a simple and justified mod action can be perceived harsher here. Shit, just look at all the mod drama comms! 🤣
In the end, I just want what everyone, users and mods, would agree is fair.
Immediate banishment does sound fairly harsh, but I thought was not even under discussion. Immediate removal is another thing, which I perceive more neutrally. If the offence is egregious enough that the person flagrantly violating the rules is practically daring the mods to ban them (this does happen, OFTEN!) then I can definitely see scenarios where this is warranted. Otoh even a casual string of comments that are negatively oriented might rather be dealt with via a message (DM? public reply to one of the comments?) - it all depends on their severity, and on the maturity of the mods, and how resilient the community is. This community seeking to provide a safe haven… yeah, this one I could see immediate removal being far more common than usual.
Of course, Lemmy does not notify anyone of comments being removed, so that’s another wrinkle in all of this. Someone finding out months to years later that some of their content was removed has a different feel to it than receiving a notification, especially if an explanation is offered along with that. Lemmy really is so primitive in so very many ways (though I don’t think that either PieFed or Mbin offer such notifications either, so this is more an issue affecting the entire Threadiverse), that what would be most ideal typically very much takes a backseat to what the tools will allow to be done.
“Don’t comply in advance” is advice that I hear a lot these days. I really don’t think that a community called “Uplifting News” is going to end up in e.g. yepowertrippingbastards for daring to remove - gasp! - comments that contain strong negativity? If that is what the rules of the community asks for, then it is functioning as advertised, leaving people entirely free to either participate or not, and someone who does not even so much as bother to read the rules may feel put out, but should not really expect much sympathy from the Threadiverse community at large when it is they that violated the rules, and the mods who upheld exactly what they said (in advance!) they would do?
Anarchy does not mean that there are never any rules anywhere, and in fact afaik quite the opposite in promoting for people to be more rather than less cognizant about their behavior and in particular how it affects others… even if only out of a selfish desire to not have any potential consequences wrap back around to affect themselves?
Personally, I use Photon Lemmy and enable the option to send a message when doing mod actions by default
How does it deliver them - as DMs?
yeah that’s what i meant by message
Thank you for doing that:-)
If those are your examples of negativity, I am unimpressed. To channel Homer S., “pffft, I’m more negative than that.”
Those are what’s being reported and people are demanding removed. I personally don’t think they need removal either.