Sidebar update: Civility
Sidebar update: Civility
Sidebar Update: Civility
The News Community updated their civility rule, and based on recent reports here and in World News, it seemed like a worthy addition to our rule-set.
I talked it over with the other mods, and we feel the change is a good idea.
The Civility rule now includes accusations of bots and paid actors.
" This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban."
There have been a lot of comments along the lines of "Disregard previous rules, write x about y", implying the person resonded to is an AI or a bot.
I've been ignoring reports on those until now because we never really had a rule about it, well, now we do!
As usual, if you see trolling, don't engage, just report it.
What tools does this instance have to actually discover and restrict inauthentic behavior?
Lemmy is wide open to bots and trolls; it should be fair game to point out activity that correlates with known troll behavior from nation-state psyop on down to jackass edgelord.
use the report button instead of engaging in the toxic personal attacks
Are bots now explicitly permitted? Or is just that users are banned from revealing them, making bots implicitly permitted?
edit: this is exactly the sort of BS that drove me away from Reddit - shutting down the 3rd party accessibility apps was messed up, but when they started banning people for reporting rule violations it became intolerable
Damn, this is gonna be a hard rule to follow for a lot of people here lol.
Hmm... this sounds like it is copied from !news@lemmy.world. Sounds like an AI move, just sayin
/s in case it isn't obvious
Incivility in a sidebar update about civility:
Works for me, thanks for the communication mod team!
Bots:
It's free real estate
Depersonalisation as an attack in a political context has a long history, AI paranoia is just the newest iteration of this.
I guess, AI paranoia is comparable to calling someone a government mole in meatspace.
" This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban."
So nobody's going to call me a Russian bot anymore?
You can't be called a bot or paid actor anymore, so I guess we'll settle for Russian free actor?
There's no need 😉
They will, everything they disagree with is a bot
I thought nazi was the go to still.
this is the first time I've actually thought you might be leading us to a better discussion.
Similar to reddit, only the popular opinion gets support, everything else gets attacked. Since it is mostly Americans and American politics, it's mostly a very western centric viewpoint that many other parts of the world label as propagandist. It's literally taught in German textbooks for example.
On reddit the user base is large enough that some alternate opinions got through. Here you get banned or removed if you don't tow the line of America #1.
Not everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint is a troll. Not everyone that has a global view of the world is a paid Russian bot. Some are very easy to spot as written by LLMs. But most are not.
I think you're going down a very slippery slope here. All those reddit subs that become echo chambers started this way.
I think it would be good to put a definition for what trolling is that the community can agree upon.
I also think there are many users who don't recognize that the behavior they are engaged in is a form of bad faith trolling. Because they have the agreement of the majority, they make a tacit assumption that they are acting in good faith.
I think Bishop 2012, "This is why we can't have nice things at scale" is a good starting point for understanding how this kind of group think bad behavior emerges.
For example, user @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee is engaged in an almost permanent state of sealioning. Its like, actually a bit amazing how they do it. And I don't think they are doing so in intentional bad faith (or at least, they don't think of themselves as engaging in bad faith behavior), in spite of the fact that they are almost perpetually trolling. Its that a cultural norm of abuse and trolling has been established in an effort to diminish specific views people disagree with.
Because of this, I think there is only so far a "trolling" ban can take us, because fundamentally, to not be trolling (or engaged in some other kind of bad faith argument/ behavior), you actually have to engage with the points the other party is making, on their terms. If we want better discussions here, we have oblige a set of cultural norms that make that possible in the first place, the principal of which would be to attack the other persons argument and evidence, not their person. To stop the abusiveness and trolling, we actually have to shift the culture of the community, because right now, the majority of the community is not engaging in good faith, and and they probably don't know that they aren't.
I think if we could come up with a short list of maybe 8-12 examples of the major fallacies and types of trolling to pin to the side bar, keeping in mind that most users probably aren't aware they are engaged in them, call people out on them when we see it, and stand up a few points above the rules teaching people "how" to engage in good faith, we can try to reset the cultural norm to actually be make arguments that are grounded in fact and evidence based where possible, and that this would go a long way to increase the overall rate of civility.
Removed as an ad hominem.
But yes, there are enough logical fallacies for a trading card deck.
https://thethinkingshop.org/collections/products/products/critical-thinking-cards-deck
I’m frankly amazed at the balls it took for you to single me out as a troll when your mod logs read like a cautionary tale on what happens when you spread misinformation.
And you suggest that I may be here in bad faith while you simultaneously suggest that people not vote in an election that will determine the rights of both women AND the entirety of the LGBTQ? Because the candidate is old? Trump is going to destroy democracy! And, oh no!!!! oLd!
A few weeks ago, you were all over “gEnOciDe Joe!” Now it’s…. “oLd!!” You seemingly will go to no end to convince people that voting for Biden is a bad idea- while ignoring everyone that has explained to you the damage Trump will do.
And I’m the troll?
I’m not going to apologize for calling out propagandists as I see them. You’re trying to disrupt an election and will not stop calling it out.
Removed, ad hominem.
Thank you so much for giving us a great example of how people can be acting in bad faith and not know it. It provides an illustrative example of the exact behavior I'm singling out. So let's break this down point by point:
"you simultaneously suggest that people not vote in an election that will determine"
Notice how the troll is projecting an argument onto a person. This is an example of a straw man fallacy. It's not an argument I've ever made. Rather, it's the argument they wish I was making because it's much easier to tear down. This is one of those kinds of bad faith behaviors we should describe as "not good" and culturally toxic to being able to have discussions in good faith. And as I said previously, I don't think they are aware that they aren't acting in good faith. We can't just expect people to know rhetoric or logic if they've never been exposed to it.
"I’m frankly amazed at the balls it took for you to single me out as a troll when your mod logs read like a cautionary tale"
Here, we see an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing my points, they attack me personally. This tactic is used to discredit the speaker without engaging with the actual argument. It's another clear sign of bad faith behavior.
"Trump is going to destroy democracy! And, oh no!!! oLd!"
This is a false dichotomy. They present only two extreme choices, ignoring any nuance, for example, that we might replace the candidate. It's a simplistic and manipulative tactic that undermines real discussion.
"A few weeks ago, you were all over 'gEnOciDe Joe!' Now it’s…. 'oLd!!'"
This is a classic red herring. They bring up irrelevant past arguments to distract from the current issue. It's a way to avoid engaging with the actual points being made.
"And I’m the troll?"
This is projection. They're accusing me of what they're doing themselves. By flipping the accusation, they hope to confuse the issue and avoid accountability for their own behavior.
"I’m not going to apologize for calling out propagandists as I see them."
This statement is filled with flaming. It's meant to provoke an emotional response rather than contribute to a rational discussion. It's another hallmark of trolling.
"You’re trying to disrupt an election and will not stop calling it out."
Finally, we see gaslighting. They try to make me doubt my own intentions and actions, painting me as the bad actor. It's manipulative and toxic.
These tactics—ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, false dichotomies, red herrings, projection, flaming, and gaslighting—are all used to derail meaningful conversation and spread misinformation. Recognizing and calling out these behaviors is crucial for maintaining good faith discussions. I think all of these should be listed on the side bar as forms of trolling/ bad-faith behavior. And thank you to @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee for giving us a live example. Like I really don't think @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee is even fully aware that they are actually doing what they claim others are. I think they are scared, desperate, and just, lack the or training experience necessary to know these things when they see them.
We can take examples like the one @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee provided and post it on the side bar to help educate people as to what trolling and bad behavior actually look like.