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 # to comment.
echoing the sentiment of fellow mod Aatube (they also made a comment, but i can not mark their comment as “Distinguish as moderator comment”, so just linking and copying the statement) - we are not discussing insta bans or perma bans. we would have warnings and temporary bans. perma bans are extremely rare.
My 2 cents (not as a mod) - do not remove or ban. My primary reason is that there should be some healthy dose of reality in the mix. for example, there was a post about some miracle drug which cures addiction. it was in comments that clarified that drug has been known for quite some time, and has not been prescribed because it’s efficacy is not proven (it is more vibes/feels/placebo based), and it increases risk for heart related diseases (so we can not just prescribe and be like if it does not work, there is no harm).
As a mod, i do feel there is some room to change the rules. we can mostly just ask the comments section to be more civil. it is fair to point problems, but not shit unnecessarily. for example, there was a recent post about some actor “adopting” a town/village. in comments someone said that these never work. if they really want to bring change, they should lobby and bring policy change (which they say so casually as if it is that easy to be done). I did not delete the comment for two reasons - one i believe in free speech, and if what they say is shit, it will get downvoted (while i am not always about mob justice, it is good to know what the people think) (in case of this comment, it was -10 - -15 ish last i checkd). Secondly, i had no rule allowing me to do so - we delete/ban hate speech, an uncivility, but in this case, this anger was not targetted (it was more of - they never end up bringing anything good kinda argument instead of actor specific, it was more about how they go by generally). while it does not match the general vibe of community, i do not feel i should delete stuff hust on that basis.
the comment i was talking about - https://piefed.social/post/1306755#comment_8157021
just so you know, ibogaine is not a placebo, has standout efficacy, but also standout elevated heart risks etc as well as being drugs-ish itself. it’s also poorly understood
I am sorry, i should have not made comment before knowing fully. i did not really mean placebo part, but i rember reading the wiki page and it said mixed results. I am not saying it does nothing, but it seemingly is not a miracle drug. thanks for correcting
The community’s entire premise is subjective. Let people discuss a post’s merit as being uplifting in the comments. Just enforce civility.
Something similar happened to !cooking@lemmy.world a few months ago and the mods ended up sending an announcement that included this:
Reporting posts that are on topic for being off topic will result in no moderation.
Here’s the link: https://threadiverse.link/lemmy.world/post/32937669
You’re the one who’s going to moderate the community, if you don’t want to remove comments or permaban anybody then don’t. There are plenty of us here that will support you and the community regardless of your decision.
However, please make the rules clear, e.g. three strikes and you’re banned for a month or for fifty years. It’s impossible to make everyone happy and FWIW I appreciate what you’re doing.
@sad_detective_man likes having Uplifting News on his feed, as do I; @OpenStars, @Kolanaki and @oeuf made very good points regarding enforcement, respite and sanctuary; I echo @frongt and @chiocciola’s comments about removal and personal attacks; @CrazM13 and @Sh00Fly made a valid point about sympathy and empathy but unfortunately not everyone is capable of empathy which is partially how we got here; I do like this: “If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” That covers a lot of ground…
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.
how would you distinguish between “dismissive of the good news” and “negativity that does not needlessly affect others”? like, what would “Great news for the scions of billionaires, I guess.” in response for a breakthrough in surgery for terminal disease fall under?
On its own, I would call that dismissive. Generally, I would say that “negativity that does not needlessly affect others” is more about adding to the discussion in a healthy but negative way. Personal anecdotes, pushing for future positive action, simple sympathy/empathy, or even the below part of my comment, would be what I would put under this category.
Sadly, I don’t think it is possible to have rigid objective categories due to the subject of this community. But that was my thoughts.
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:-)
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.
Remove. It’s already unwelcome per the community info.
Furthermore, political and “orphan crushing machine” type posts should also be removed.
political and “orphan crushing machine” type posts should also be removed.
posts are already deleted. we are specifically asking for comments because they have generally different nature. (it is more about balancing hope/cope)
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”
imo, they are always welcome
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?
let me tell you by example of my country. we have a authoritarian leader, and big news media is very much in their pockets. if you go on news channel, it is either all positive stuff, or partisanal/communal shit.
Thing is that, the postive stuff does not feel positive, when you completely ignore reality. according to them, we should celebrate opening of a new highway, where majority of aour road network is fucked. we should ignore floods, or other disasters, and also ignore the corruption done in making highway, just to celebrate it.
Good does not have a meaning in a vacuum. it is a relative thing. if all we do is allow hopeful hippy yipee stuff, it eventually becomes cope.
Good does not have a meaning in a vacuum. it is a relative thing.
Thank you for sharing your story. I agree insofar as the above sentence. I would hope that we could also be considerate if not even outright kind to others, especially as we realize that different people are in different mental health spaces as they take their own personal journeys around the sun each year. Schadenfreude in particular is something that people will outright leave social media entirely to avoid, so there becomes a DESPERATE NEED to have a “safe space” that is free of such. The rights of someone to vomit up their emotions onto everyone around them does not outweigh the rights of someone else to not have to listen. Which to be clear, I am not accusing you of thinking anything differently than that, only making sure that we are starting from the same common ground.
There are many, Many, MANY “news” communities all around the entire Fediverse. Can we not have just ONE community where e.g. schadenfreude is kept out? This is not a “paradox of intolerance” thing, since people in this community are not making that decision for others, only for themselves, as they choose to remain a member of this community vs. to block it.
Put another way: if you do not want an abortion, then do not get one? But why should you want to stop others from doing one? Similarly, if you do not want to participate in this “safe space” that blocks out negativity, then nobody is forcing you to - unlike the authoritarian regime that you unfortunately have to live underneath the auspices of
What the people of this community wanted is described well in the side-bar text imho:
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, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
I would argue that false news should be banned, so if you agree then… good. The above sentence though seems to me to talk about TRUE news stories that foster that hope.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else’s big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
This is what people have asked for. Why not let them/us have it? It is after all a choice, and once people are done taking a break from the “real(-istic) news”, they can rejoin society and listen in on actual conversations about more serious events taking place in the world. But what is wrong with “coping” with major depressive conditions occurring all around the world, and moreover, even if something were “wrong” (although as you say good is relative, so isn’t wrong also thus?), so what - why is that something that either you or I get to / have to judge? Again, why not let them/us have it? There are so many other places around the Fediverse to have deeper discussions - that is simply not what this community is about though? Make fun of this community elsewhere if you must!?! Other spaces are built specifically for that. For that matter, make fun of women too, and of trans people if you like - you may not win many friends by doing so, but you do you (I am being hyperbolic here on purpose btw, in case this exaggerated caricature of an argument helps get past anything that might otherwise get lost with too much subtlety), but importantly: not here? This is a safe space for people who want to get away from all of that for just one fucking minute, without having to turn off social media entirely.
Yes I hear your argument: “people who block out the world are making a poor personal choice” - but it is just that, a personal choice. You do not have to agree in order to respect it.
You could, of course, always make a new community that does things “better” (relatively speaking) than this one, if you feel that you would like to do so. Or make a proposal to do things differently here, e.g. as you are doing by stating your position. And I am stating my counter-argument to your position, hopefully in a (relatively) friendly manner without having created too much in the way of negativity:-).
I would argue that false news should be banned, so if you agree then… good.
it is already banned. we banned it alongside schadenfreude.
Similarly, if you do not want to participate in this “safe space” that blocks out negativity, then nobody is forcing you to
we are not allowing negative stuff. the argument is more of - we are making a safe space (or already have a safe space). should we allow people to debate/refute within it, or should we just keep ignoring those comments (that is what i have been doing as a mod) or delete them.
once people are done taking a break from the “real(-istic) news”
i atleast do not want the positivity too high for it to not feel real. for example, recent post on hiv drug, discussion of vaccine being 28000 in us, or possiblity to make it in 40$ elsewhere. it is not a positive bit. it is a informative bit. we are also realising that medicine in us is fucked, but there is hope of cheaper meds. we are still being real and positive. I deally this community should be such that we should get most news of world, so we do not have to “go back to reality”.
that is simply not what this community is about though?
that is for us (as in the community members) to decide in this post. there should be a healthy amount of reality dose. we will not yell “people are dying in so and so place” under everynews, but we should still say - hey this bit of positive news, it has so and so additional notes, where x and y problems are real. without being all dystopian.
hopefully in a (relatively) friendly manner without having created too much in the way of negativity:-)
you have kept your points perfectly. these are the kinds of things we still want to keep. we could debate, without ever being personal. we both kept our points (imo you did better than me), and we may disagree but we still did not make this community “not uplifting”.
My vision (not that it matters much) for this comm is that it is news which is worth sharing with youngling. not cope, but not dystopic. we do not want our kids to only know horrors of the wsorld, but we do not want them to be delusional. We give them honest news, more the good ones, but still tell them about the problems. So they still strive to make the world better.
First, thank you so much for your kind comments. Sometimes I get discouraged and do not want to continue a conversation b/c it simply has ceased to be fun. You are engaging here as you press for truth and I appreciate that.
Second, I may have missed something - no not in your words but in the OP, where I only just now saw the edit that included the actual examples, before which I was arguing in the dark (also I was not certain if we were talking about the comments or the reports about those, although I did presume the former). So now I am confused more than ever: almost every single one of those seems negative to me! “I hope he gets what he voted for In the end” is the very definition of schadenfreude, is it not?! Phrases such as “ruinously expensive”, “So, let’s be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse…”, and so on. The last one seems legit though: it is pointing out a problem with the actual study. Maybe I am not smart enough to see though that all of these are of the same type? Perhaps, because the “you will know it when you see it” argument is indeed a slippery concept. But if the last example truly is different as it seems to me, then perhaps the response to it might be to remove the entire post that it refers to rather than remove simply that comment, for being “negative”?
Now with my head spinning I need to get my bearings: are you trying to say that continuing the community forward as it has been is too tiring on the moderation team, and so you want to change it? And if so, you don’t simply want it to become yet another “news” community, where pratically anything goes (hurtling insults, vomiting toxicity, etc.), as all of the other ones seem to be? (fortunately I am unfairly exaggerating here - actually e.g. !politics@beehaw.org seems quite sane - but definitely the trend across the Threadiverse seems more towards rather than away from toxicity) Instead, you want to keep it “mostly” as it was, but widen the scope just a tiny bit, e.g. to allow the last comment but none of the ones before it? If so, then I would be okay with that. Again, you could rather remove the entire post that it refuted if it was no longer “positive”, but so long as the comment itself isn’t too negative - e.g. is just straight-up schadenfreude “I hope you get what you voted for (implication: AND DIE, a HORRIBLE, AGONIZING TORTOROUS death)” vibes (sorry for expanding out that implication, but isn’t that WHY people are trying to avoid the schadenfreude, because the simple words “get” and “voted” and “for” are not upsetting, but rather the concepts that they point to, which touches on DEEP psychological issues that some people may not be in a position to handle yet, at that moment? I have been there multiple times this year as I watch the USA government situation before my very eyes.)
BTW I hold the same view as you about the children: they not only suspect, they KNOW when they are being lied to. They need extra care and attention to be told how to process that information, rather than assume that they are incapable and so avoid the issue entirely. People die, it’s a reality. Then again, I doubt that there are any truly actual children on the Threadiverse - at best we might have some teenagers who would already have had that bubble popped, but nowhere do we come close to needing to avoid talking about things for the reasons of “bUt ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn!?”. I rather see this community as those adults needing a break from the toxicity that is present in so many other places around the Threadiverse, particularly surrounding any “news” topics.
That last example comment… it is written respectfully, it expresses empathy, it cites facts and logical reasoning, it continues beyond that to connect the chain all the way towards why the article might be fraudulent (or if not factually so, then at least fraudulently over-hyping the reality of its claims when in reality nothing is yet known, but for $$$ reasons someone would rather claim to know more than is yet possible without doing the actual research). I guess I could see where that one is called “negative”, but it is not an example of true “negativity” - do you see what I mean in drawing that distinction? That one does not offend me in the slightest.
Whereas “I hope he dies!” (more politely phrased as “I hope he gets what he voted for”, but the same concept, yet its true meaning made abundantly more clear by following that up with “in the end” - why the END do you think? unless they mean the FINAL end, for that person at least? and even emphasizing it with the capital “In the” like an ominous phrasing that draws your attention to specifically that portion of the sentence) offends me much more. I blocked !politics@lemmy.world because it was just constantly like that, and I am thinking about blocking others like !nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz for the same reason (albeit to a far lesser degree ofc, still, how much shit is okay to appear in your water that you want to drink?).
Then again, while that is my vision for this place, I am not the one having to put in the work to read all that and decide whether removal is warranted. I have really strained here to convey my vision, definitely using WAAAAY too many words, and in my zeal all these little stories and tangents that I hoped would help but probably by adding length may even have hurt a little, as compared to if I had thought about it more and written it more concisely? But above all of that, the people who have to do the clean-up I really do feel like should get the highest say in the matter. I am so glad to have a community where especially the ubiquitous schadenfreude is kept at bay, at least as best as possible. I would REALLY hate to see more schadenfreude come into this community. But especially comments like that last example? Yeah I am totally okay with that one. Disagreements voiced respectfully, with empathy, may be negative but not contributing to negativity in my book. At which point we might have ended up agreeing with one another - e.g. similarly to how you mentioned in your country, forced “positivity” is not always a “positive” thing, right? Well the latter part is definitely true, though whether we fully agree or not I am not entirely certain - yet hopefully by talking it back and forth, with respect and empathy, we gained some better understanding of each others’ position? And THAT is an uplifting thing!:-D
the last example was under “Huntington’s disease successfully treated for first time”. the importance of the news comes from the fact that treatment was even effective on 30 patients. that said the comment’s also a reasonable amount of skepticism, so i too have much higher levels of opposition against removing it.
I am confused more than ever: almost every single one of those seems negative to me!
almost all of them are negative without reasons, they should be deleted imo.
(edit after writing) - imo these 2 should stay. while negative, they add something to chatter. they are not just yelling and atleast saying some sensical sentences ( i am not commenting on their validity here)
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.
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.
(edit over)
but there are more sensible negative comments (search miracle drug in this very page). there negative comment was necessary.
I doubt that there are any truly actual children on the Threadiverse
if we are law/tos abiding citizens there should be none (something something, uk child safety law - much of fediverse “decided” to make our platform adult only).
Also I did not mean that this should be kid friendly news. What i meant was that in spirit, we should only post something here which i feel is okay to show to some “child” (hypothetical). This idea was brought up around schadenfreude ban where thought is simple - someone getting harmed is bad. but if in front of a kid you get happy if a bad person gets hurt, they are confused - we taught them that getting harmed is bad. this is is where child friendly idea originated.
definitely using WAAAAY too many words
nah, i do not mind reading words. when online, i usually do not read long stuff, partly due to time constraints, othertimes i have the feeling of ai slop. if i know someone who has written stuff by spending time, least i can do is read (and/or respond), even if we disagree. I like to have my online conversation similar to how i would have them irl.
the people who have to do the clean-up I really do feel like should get the highest say in the matter.
when i was not the mod, i had more respect for mods. now i have a tad bit less. a good mod’s responsibility is to make good rules, and show some examples. if done correctly, people respect them, and do most of moderation (by voting/reporting). Most of the time my job is to check if there are any reports today, what was posted, and mildly skim through post and comments (which i would have done regardless of being mod or not, as i only try to mod stuff i am interested in). I am not saying all moderation is easy, but my experience with this community (especially after the bad news ban) has been really easy.
And THAT is an uplifting thing!:-D
<3
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”
Your very desire to help aids in the restoration of my own faith in humanity (after I thought that Reddit had destroyed it all). I’m not joking - I really mean that. Such conversations on Reddit never ended well, but here on the Threadiverse they often (even if not always) do. I am glad that you are here, sharing your thoughts.:-) ☺️
well thanks. I’m trying to be less of the person I turned into towards the end of my stay on reddit. this place feels like a chance for social media to be okay again so I want to be better to it. thanks for being chill too and hearing me out 😊
What would be your criteria for removing a comment?
What would be your criteria for removing a post as “orphan crushing machine”? (Also, political posts meeting the “More clarification” paragraph at https://lemmy.world/post/30918729 are already removed, the most recent but weak example being the post on Sanders having his tour go to NYC for a Mamdani town hall.) (Separate threads, separate comments.)
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 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?
That’s what is happening on Reddit right now.
Perchance adding a footnote or an amendment to the rules on the sidebar, e.g. “The Golden Rule: If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
There will always be be Debbie Downers, Negative Nellies and Angry Adams waiting to rain on someone’s parade. Having read plenty of Lemmy drama, a common complaint is that the rules are “impossible for a user to follow unless it is made clear” and “disagreeing with [mod’s name] gets you banned”.
We all know that sometimes there are negative aspects of that Uplifting News but common sense dictates that I keep that negativity to myself and gladly upvote anyway. Am I glad that Huntington’s disease is treatable? Of course! Am I going to tell Lemmy about not-so-nice things I learned from the physicians in my family? Oh no, not a chance. Why not? There’s always someone in Lemmy hoping to read about a cure for a disease that their loved one was diagnosed with. Who am I to take that hope away from them?
For the sake and sanity of both users and moderators, I agree that the rules should be made clear(er) so neither moderator nor user can feign ignorance.
For example:
“Your comment was removed for breaking Rule 1a: Spreading negativity; Rule 12c: Citation without Source(s); Rule 99x: Toxic comment irrelevant to post”
1st Offense: Comment removed and greet someone a Happy Cake Day, no time served 2nd Offense: Explain your strengths and weaknesses in two paragraphs, due in 24 hours or 7-day ban. 3rd Offense: Thesis on the Effects of Positive Thinking, due in 72 hours or 1 year ban.
Disclaimer: The moderators of Uplifting News community reserves the right to update rules, remove content and ban users.
OP, I commend you for this inclusive post and your proactive approach towards making this community better. Everyone on this thread has made insightful comments. Laws change and evolve everyday in this world that we live in, there’s no reason why the Uplifting News community can’t do the same.
Thank you.
Nice blanket law.
I’d like you/your firm to represent me at my next contract negotiations.
(using my main for more in-depth personal thoughts:) Personally, I don’t think we should, as it’s too subjective a thing to have a rule against, and downvotes already exist to measure subjective opinion. There is the concern that like the schadenfreude situation, the upvotes are coming from the !all people over that of this commag, but schadenfreude is much easier to set a bright-line rule for and it doesn’t seem like negative comments are dominating our commag.
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).
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.
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.
Mods thank you for all the work you do and also go fuck yourselves you thin skinned pricks on a windy day.
Only joking really, I haven’t met any of you.
thank/fuck to you too. (i do not cuss, just joking, no hate)
<3
If those are your examples of negativity, I am unimpressed. To channel Homer S., “pffft, I’m more negative than that.”
there is worse stuff which sometimes gets deleted before many noticing
Those are what’s being reported and people are demanding removed. I personally don’t think they need removal either.
Yeah, it’s a slippery slope where moderators burn out because they’re policing tone while users cry about censorship.
