(WEEKLY) Lemmy's Aggressive Banning Issue
-
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I'm placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This week, I'd like to discuss something that's been a bit of an issue for me personally.
Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.
I've personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil's advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they've discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I've made here and use them as "receipts" in order to dismiss anything they think they're reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.
I'm someone who operates on the idea of "If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion."
To quote myself:
It’s pretty tragic that people can't handle opposing opinions.
I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
- Do downvotes represent a "disagree" button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
- Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
- Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
- Is there a way to build a "safe space" without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
-
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I'm placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This week, I'd like to discuss something that's been a bit of an issue for me personally.
Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.
I've personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil's advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they've discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I've made here and use them as "receipts" in order to dismiss anything they think they're reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.
I'm someone who operates on the idea of "If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion."
To quote myself:
It’s pretty tragic that people can't handle opposing opinions.
I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
- Do downvotes represent a "disagree" button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
- Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
- Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
- Is there a way to build a "safe space" without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
some people and mods on Lemmy have nanometer thin skin. it's kind of expected with the free for all nature of who can make a community and moderate it.
their communities will either die by natural selection because they've banned everyone who can participate. or they will become deep echo chambers. both of these are allowed and expected in the fediverse.
if you don't like their community and how they run things, make your own alternative community and run it the way you like. that is within your control. it is not within your control to change the behavior of every random human on the internet that does something in a way you don't like.
-
some people and mods on Lemmy have nanometer thin skin. it's kind of expected with the free for all nature of who can make a community and moderate it.
their communities will either die by natural selection because they've banned everyone who can participate. or they will become deep echo chambers. both of these are allowed and expected in the fediverse.
if you don't like their community and how they run things, make your own alternative community and run it the way you like. that is within your control. it is not within your control to change the behavior of every random human on the internet that does something in a way you don't like.
I think this take is just a tad dismissive though, because participating in a community and running a community are two entirely different degrees of participation.
It also places the burden of responsibility on the victim. If I get kicked out of a coffee shop because of my race or sexual orientation or gender identity, the solution shouldn't be "just go make your own coffee shop if you don't like how they run theirs." There needs to be reasonable accountability.
-
I think this take is just a tad dismissive though, because participating in a community and running a community are two entirely different degrees of participation.
It also places the burden of responsibility on the victim. If I get kicked out of a coffee shop because of my race or sexual orientation or gender identity, the solution shouldn't be "just go make your own coffee shop if you don't like how they run theirs." There needs to be reasonable accountability.
you got banned from an internet forum. not kicked out from a physical place serving goods. these are not the same. you are not a victim.
you don't have a right to force yourself onto an online community that doesn't want you there, regardless of how reasonable you feel your opinions are.
-
you got banned from an internet forum. not kicked out from a physical place serving goods. these are not the same. you are not a victim.
you don't have a right to force yourself onto an online community that doesn't want you there, regardless of how reasonable you feel your opinions are.
Are you able to elaborate on this? Why do you feel that they are not somewhat equivalent?
In the real world, could you not just go to a new coffee shop (since both places are commonly found)?
If you are obeying the stated rules, why shouldn't you have an expectation that you would be able to participate in either?
Edit: @kreskin@lemmy.world - Downvoting a clarifying question is kinda... counter to this whole Community. Don't be a goof.
-
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I'm placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.
This week, I'd like to discuss something that's been a bit of an issue for me personally.
Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.
I've personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil's advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they've discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I've made here and use them as "receipts" in order to dismiss anything they think they're reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.
I'm someone who operates on the idea of "If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion."
To quote myself:
It’s pretty tragic that people can't handle opposing opinions.
I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):
- Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
- Do downvotes represent a "disagree" button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
- Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
- Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
- Is there a way to build a "safe space" without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?
Better discovery of related communities, including everything from cross-endorsement from mods, to public user lists of communities, to lemmy instance admin recommended communities (kinda like old reddit default subs, per instance), to fediverse reputation mechanisms, etc.
Also better UX, like lemmy clients with "multireddit" style browsing support.
When interacting with individual lemmy communities, we need better introductions and exposure to rules and guidelines while posting.
Individual communities and instances should be able to run themselves however they want. The lemmy network will be healthiest when people know what to expect and where to find what they want. And if you don't find a place, it should be easier to create and advertise it.
And lastly: community coaching where experienced mods teach new ones.
-
Better discovery of related communities, including everything from cross-endorsement from mods, to public user lists of communities, to lemmy instance admin recommended communities (kinda like old reddit default subs, per instance), to fediverse reputation mechanisms, etc.
Also better UX, like lemmy clients with "multireddit" style browsing support.
When interacting with individual lemmy communities, we need better introductions and exposure to rules and guidelines while posting.
Individual communities and instances should be able to run themselves however they want. The lemmy network will be healthiest when people know what to expect and where to find what they want. And if you don't find a place, it should be easier to create and advertise it.
And lastly: community coaching where experienced mods teach new ones.
lemmy instance admin recommended communities
Also better UX, like lemmy clients with “multireddit” style browsing support.
Both of these will be available in Lemmy 1.0
-
Are you able to elaborate on this? Why do you feel that they are not somewhat equivalent?
In the real world, could you not just go to a new coffee shop (since both places are commonly found)?
If you are obeying the stated rules, why shouldn't you have an expectation that you would be able to participate in either?
Edit: @kreskin@lemmy.world - Downvoting a clarifying question is kinda... counter to this whole Community. Don't be a goof.
Lemmy communities are not businesses, usually they are just hobby projects run by people in their free time. So a closer analogy is that posting in someone's community is like being in their house (or garden). And when you're in someone's house they are free to throw you out for any reason.
-
Lemmy communities are not businesses, usually they are just hobby projects run by people in their free time. So a closer analogy is that posting in someone's community is like being in their house (or garden). And when you're in someone's house they are free to throw you out for any reason.
I get that. It's a solid analogy, but on the other hand you also have some people who run a dozen or more Communities. To borrow your analogy, these people claim whole unrelated neighbourhoods and permanently remove you from all of them for accidentally stepping on their lawn 3 towns over. This absolutely is a problem as I see it. It hurts discussion and discoverability.
-
I get that. It's a solid analogy, but on the other hand you also have some people who run a dozen or more Communities. To borrow your analogy, these people claim whole unrelated neighbourhoods and permanently remove you from all of them for accidentally stepping on their lawn 3 towns over. This absolutely is a problem as I see it. It hurts discussion and discoverability.
Its definitely a problem. One way to fix it would be for admins to be more strict with the moderators of local communities, and replace them if they go too far. But it seems most admins are quite hands off and prefer to let things run their course.
-
Its definitely a problem. One way to fix it would be for admins to be more strict with the moderators of local communities, and replace them if they go too far. But it seems most admins are quite hands off and prefer to let things run their course.
We almost need like... some kind of "Supreme Court" or Mod review system. One way or another, it's a really hard problem to solve for certain.
-
We almost need like... some kind of "Supreme Court" or Mod review system. One way or another, it's a really hard problem to solve for certain.
Thats not possible because instances are completely independent from each other, and one one can force admins to do anything (except their local governments and hosting providers). So different instances will always have different standards, and at most other instances can defederate if they disagree.
