Speak up now: What should our community guidelines be?
Speak up now: What should our community guidelines be?
Hello everyone! If you have not yet seen it, @ernest has handed over moderation to @Drusas @Entropywins @ Frog-Brawler (the tag system consistently messes up the link to FB's username lol) and myself here in !politics.
First order of business is for you all to weigh in on the community guidelines that you would like to see here. As the mod team, we will weigh all suggestions and then add them to the side bar as magazine/community rules. I'm going to give about 48 hours for users to see this thread and add a comment or discuss.
Please know that the goal is not to create an echo chamber here in !politics, but we want to ensure that there is not an encroachment of rage bait and toxicity. It brings down the quality of the magazine and it discourages community engagement.
For the time being, the mod tools are pretty sparse, so I want to manage expectations about the scope of moderation we're able to do right now. For now, our touch will be light. Expect increased functionality as time progresses, though. We have 3 weeks of reports on file, so please know we see them. Give us some time to establish how to handle those before you start to see any movement.
One type of story (that I can't find any good examples of here, so that's good!) that I don't like is the hearsay or expert-says types of stories. e.g., former-ex-prosecutor-political-insider says Trump definitely did something bad and will be charged next week.
It's not real news masquerading as news for clicks and there's nothing new or real to discuss in the comments.
"so-and-so slams so-and-so"-type articles are usually like this, too. It's just political bickering and doesn't contain any new points of discussion. Any comments on these articles is often just more attacking, since that's where the discussion started from.
I realize these are probably quite difficult to identify and moderate objectively, but I think the community would be better off without them!
This one will be challenging, but we will consider it. Thanks for weighing in though. Even if this doesn't become a direct rule, it at least points to the kind of community we want to co-create.
I can definitely get behind that. Most of the political anger is setup with this pot stirring he said she said shit. Granted, there still is a place for some of the puffery "I'm going to pass a law to do X" even though it may or may not happen. A lot of them can be total bullshit, like hopelessly unpopular laws being put into consideration that have no hope of even getting to vote, let alone passing. But at least that is real politics rather than the simple shit slinging of editorial content today.
To start, I would like to link this graphic to the community guidelines to illustrate where the cutoff is between heated debate and inappropriate bickering.
I haven't seen that before, but it does seem useful. Having relatively clear definitions of those lines is a good start.
No screenshots of article headlines. Always require a link to an article instead.
One of the biggest problems I had with reddit was the posting of editorialized headlines with no source. Once I would find the source (if the article is even real), I often find the article contradicts it's own headline or lacks any sources for the claims made. Of course, the screenshots would be upvoted anyway because people want to be outraged, regardless if the story is accurate or not.
I would want to qualify this a bit to expand, but in short - I would like to see only content that generates discussion or educates the audience. Memes and screen caps of article headlines (I never knew this was a thing on reddit) fail to educate, so I don't see that having a home here.
Content may be:
- Direct url to reliable or reputable source of journalism (as determined by Media Bias Charts from watchdog organizations). Post title must match article title. Poster must include lead or nut graf in body of post text. Poster may communicate their interpretation or editorialization of the news item in the first comment.
- Direct link to a YouTube video from responsible content creators - no podcasts but yes interviews with direct people of interest from trusted media sources and journalists, even if this content is editorial in nature. Editorial content (for both videos and articles) should be clearly marked EDITORIAL: [original title of linked content]
- OC threads seeking community engagement and debate (ex: DISCUSSION: How have anti-trans laws impacted you or people you know directly?) - the community space for these may be an "enter at your own risk" because I don't want to get caught in the quagmire of who has a shitty opinion versus who is a shitty person. For threads like this, I think the most moderation we should be doing should be removing/banning spammers and bots. If users want to feed the trolls in these spaces, then I won't challenge how you like to spend your weekend.
"Be Civil" is the core value for me.
I also have a question, rather than an answer. Should all posts require the URL of an external article? Or are people allowed to post "topic for discussion" and personal opinion posts? There needs to be a place for that, I'm just not sure whether this is it. So far I haven't found a good venue for that.
This is an excellent question and is really up to us as a community to establish. The thought had occurred to me that there's room in our magazine for:
- politics news that is not US-based
- threads that are discussion only about political events
- responding to something clearly editorial (thinking here if a really cogent YouTuber has a video essay about political matters that isn't rage bait)
It's just a matter of community members saying what kind of content they want here and us establishing Badges (we can do that as mods, kind of like post flair).
Politics is all about opinion. We all have different opinions on how society should be run. If we only allow fact-based reporting, this magazine might as well just be /m/news. Opinion pieces should definitely be allowed. Maybe limit it to external opinion pieces from established institutions to keep content quality high.
Based off Rule #3 I would believe that it's unspoken. However I think it should be added. I for one liked that r/politics had this rule. This magazine doesn't have to mirror that, however I believe it's worth consideration.
That said, Rule #3 could be extended to editorialized media, unless specified that the "editorializing/opinion/commentary" is OP's. That's something that should be included.
Mods might want to consider which sources are blacklisted or whitelisted. Fairly straightforward thing to automate and could cut down on things that are clickbaity or just misinformation. A biased source is one thing but a site that mainly talks about lizard people or aliens probably isn't reputable.
Might not be worth it to create a list or automation until manual moderation gets too much as that would be a chore to create.
Fully agreed about blacklists and whitelists. I would like to base those lists on something very public and transparent such as the Media Bias Chart so it doesn't seem like the mods are being arbitrary and targeting one user just because we are opposite sides of the aisle.
I like this a lot.
My first question is always going to be, what is the moderation policy for Nazi's/white supremacists/fascists?
Are you adopting a zero tolerance policy for that sort of rabble rousing trash, the iamragesparkle method, or are you going to say your hands are tied unless they blatantly violate the community guidelines?
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
This sort of question is why this thread was created. I'm in favor of a zero tolerance policy for fascism, bigotry, and anything that is clearly misinformation. But that's my personal opinion and we'll all be working together to decide on what the community wants and what works best. Rules can also be altered as we grow, of course, if our initial guidelines aren't sufficient.
Obviously I'm 100% in the camp of "you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
Sadly I joined this conversation late, so we will see if others filter in.
I'm very curious as to what sort of community the fedaverse as a whole has cultivated after the reddit exodus.
I'm all in on the punch a Nazi approach here.
I have seen enough users actively combat alt-right content here that I'm happy to swing the ban hammer on neo-Nazi and pro-white supremacy content.
What I don't want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.
I say this with all sincerity: as a progressive, we need genuine and legitimate leadership to step up and start governing again in the GOP. We don't need people who were once too awful to embrace getting a redemption arc (a la Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney style), but real and serious political leaders. I would like this magazine to be a place to stay informed about the moves and leadership on the right that are worth building bridges with.
And as much as I hate the entire MAGA crowd, we still need to be informed of their movements and goings on. So I'm not willing to draw the line at no right wing content from right wing sources ever. But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.
I meant to reply yesterday but I got distracted. I have a pretty large bias against nazis / white supremacists and fascists. Unfortunately, on the fediverse, we're not going to be able to "out now!" them at the door, simply because we're not going to be able to tell if they're sitting behind their keyboard (or phone) wearing a vest with iron crosses, nor will we be able to tell if they have either red or white laces in their Doc Martens.
I think that posting content (or in support of content) that falls into the categories you mentioned should equate to getting the boot though.
I would just emphasize the need for respect in our conversations. That seems pretty important to me.
Excuse me, I reserve the right to disrespect myself publicly. lolol ;)
Self deprecation?? Hold my beer...
I'd say the biggest ones for me are:
- Be civil
- Be on topic (that's probably a thread on its own to define what that should be)
- No editorializing/opinion/commentary in title or post body (save it for the comments)
These are okay, with the exception of giving commentary in the post body. Commentary in the post body might be a good way to tell why you think this could be especially important.
I'll piggy back on your response here to add in that I would prefer that posters copy and paste the nut graf of the news story into the body of the post.
"Nut graf" is a journalism term for the paragraph that clearly delineates what the article is about. It's what makes the piece newsworthy. "The paragraph that explains the story in a nutshell." The nut graf usually appears in the first three grafs of any current events piece.
I think if this is included in the body text (willing to invite more than just this paragraph, but bare minimum this graf), then readers can determine if the larger piece is worth their time to read or important.
I think that can still be done in a follow up comment.
Some reasons why I suggested the rule:
- It can anchor the whole discussion and responses to OP commentary need to be made at top level. i.e., discussion may become centered around the commentary instead of the article. Especially on potentially polarizing topics.
- If I have a different commentary to give than OP, should I resubmit the article with a different editorial?
- Up/downvotes will be on the quality/merit of the article and not combined with the opinion of the submitter.
- If the commentary doesn't fit within other rules, then the whole post needs to be removed and the article re-submitted.
- Any commentary can always be done in the comments, so we're not really taking anything away.
I would like to see more discussion around handling misinformation. The lines between misinformation, trolling, and someone being genuinely incorrect (which is still misinformation) can be blurry.
However, I personally believe that spreading misinformation is more dangerous than regular trolling. Of course, it can require research to determine whether or not something is mis/disinformation. Obviously this is a complicated subject and other social media platforms haven't even figured it out yet.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Do you think community engagement should be a response to misinformation or moderation be the response? I've already seen some trolls be answered with a flurry of factual links debunking misinformation claims, and it was glorious.
It's so hard to say.
Something which is demonstrably factually incorrect, which tends to be more in the scientific domain than the political domain, I'm personally in favor of removing so that the misinformation doesn't spread. However, I also see a lot of value in allowing it to remain and be corrected, especially when it's not something that can harm people (e.g., "vaccines will make you autistic and kill you!"). But then, what if it remains and nobody bothers to correct it?
I'm looking right now, as another example, at a comment which is trying to factually state that both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are pedophiles, with nothing to back this up. I would consider it trolling in that case, but there are definitely going to be instances where it's harder to distinguish. And of course, there will always be the crazies who believe utter nonsense.
I'd like to know more about the community's thoughts before we try to tackle that.
Some forms of humor including unmarked sarcasm (may be akin to light trolling) should be allowed.
Side note: It looks like the italics markup on kbin is actually underlining for other platforms.
I don't want this place to be a joyless hellscape of too much reality LOLOL
Humor, sarcasm, wit, satire should all be expected in the comment sections. Humor that punches down or is trolling in the guise of humor I guess will just be downvoted to hell. oh well.
Thanks for sharing that bit about italics. I hadn't realized and have been using italics myself. Do you know if bolding is working properly?
On my screen, bold works correctly. Italics can be produce from either *word* or _word_. But I feel like the latter should be underlined instead.
Any chance we can require a secondary comment be posted with article in text form? Lots of these sites are paywalled and I can't see the articles. There was usually some kind soul or tldr bot to post the article in the comments on /r/politics.
Good idea
I’m with a lot of people here on opinion pieces. Those are often not even based on facts and rarely provide any actual valuable discussion. So those should be either monitored more closely to only let serious substantial opinions through, or simply barred from appearing here.
Other discussions in this thread have highlighted reputable sources of content. This can include NYT opinions and news, but would never permit content from OANN.
I hope this addresses the concern about opinion/editorial content.
When I did a bit of moderation elsewhere in the past, my own rule was "no personal attacks." More to the point, "Please attack ideas as vigorously - and even as angrily - as you like. Even if I think you're wrong. But as soon as you cross over into attacking the person you're arguing with, you're done."
I think this would also cover the Nazi problem that @EffectivelyHidden mentions: "Being a Nazi/white supermacist/fascist" is an attack on other people.
It's good to see such a consensus on this matter.
I updated the sidebar with preliminary guidelines last night! 😄
I would like to see a clear delineation between News articles and Opinion pieces, even if it's just as simple as asking folks to put News: or Opinion: in the thread title.
Yes, we are triangulating around this. Others have signaled a similar take, and I'm on board with it. We may add "badges" which are similar to post flair from reddit.
To add to this, opinion articles should indicate the author. The publisher of an op-ed is mostly irrelevant and I feel like a lot of political pundits get a free pass by hiding behind publication titles.
This is a minor point, but I would also suggest not allowing any threads or posts with all capital headlines.
Easy buy in from me. =)
Maybe my threshold for shit is higher than normal, but my hope is that comments won't be removed but will be allowed to be downvoted into oblivion. At least when it comes to what could be considered a "political opinion." Of course there is a subjective line somewhere where a statement crosses from "political" to just "hate." But if a post is political, my hope would be that it gets to stand and be upvoted or downvoted, no matter how shit it might be.
A bad hot take is different than trolling activity. What I've seen the most of is an ineffective version of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. What I've seen is summarized as:
Troll: Very strong rage bait content/comment
Community user: Reasonably pissed response that this position is horseshit
Troll: Calls for civility even though they originally were like, proposing to genocide trans people, which is inhumaneThis isn't a situation to foster. Let this kind of scum in and then they bring friends. Like roaches.
Sure. There is a subjective line where they cross from "political position that is almost certainly bad and wrong" to "bait". Feel free to remove the bait, leave the bad takes.
What probably matters most is that the rules you establish needs to clearly state that there is a subjective line and that the user's have to accept that fact. There is no clear rule you can write and be objective.
I pretty strongly disagree with that one for this reason.
When it comes to fascists, white supremacists, and their ilk, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.
I'm seeing pretty broad support for not even tolerating even an inch from this camp, so I'm sure this will come out in the moderation rules.
