Yeah under the terms of service I’m also free to be a pain in the ass.

bruh really forgot that there’s other instances

Great job! 💪

©2023 LemmyWorld Page History

version: 2023-10-19 | #a2e3e0d

I appreciate that this information can be tracked with git.

How do you fit in? You’re not listed on team.lemmy.world. At least the mobile view. Or do you fall under ? in community_team on the org chart?

That org chart is neat 👌

No one should feel like there’s a “deterrent” to voting.

. . . It is a very bad idea to deter people from voting

You misread. What I wrote:

deterrent against weaponizing downvotes

Voting and weaponizing downvotes are two very different things.

To be clear, I used the phrase “weaponizing downvotes” to paraphrase the intent behind the written policy I quoted in full. Here it is again:

Do not engage in content manipulation such as posting spam content, vote manipulation through using several user accounts or consistently down-voting a user. Vote for the content, not for the person.

Seems like you have a problem with the policy then, because it is requiring you to self-regulate your own voting, and to specifically NOT vote as you please, but in a way that is best for the community as a whole.

You can potentially state an opinion in a comment and set up a bot to auto block every downvoter, then share that list publicly.

Shhh dont give them ideas

Since upvoting is most of what I do, I think it’s great that people can see it was me who upvoted them.

I don’t mind the accountability of a downvote at all. If I didn’t craft a specific reply, it lets people know who to ask if they genuinely don’t understand why their content was problematic.

Votes are public on Lemmy, in the sense that if you have admin access to an instance that is federated you will be able to find who upvoted which posts/comments in the database.

Votes on lemmy are inherently public, due to how federation works.

Just for clarity: it’s not viewable through the API. As others have said, you need to spin up an instance. In contrast to the API, this means it’s not free (due to server hosting and domain name costs), and it’s not necessarily easy (for the non-techies).

It happened to me, and it was the She-Ra fans who did it. They were angry that I called them monarchists.

I get that all the time. It amused me greatly until the day I found out I can turn off the Fantasy Internet Points entirely. Now I have no idea if my votes are up or down or sideways.

And I don’t care.

“Not my previous updoots😭”

Why is it necessary to count votes cast an unlimited time after posting. The best policy is to register votes in the UI for the user but silently ignore votes after max duration. So they can feel like they stuck it to you while not having an unreasonable effect. You could even detect and silently discard downvotes that matched that pattern or rate limit the downvotes against one party silently.

Not through the Lemmy webUI, but if you spin up an instance and subscribe to communities, the posts and comments will start getting federated to your database.

Oh, does that mean there will be a place to appeal moderation? The only issue I’ve had so far is on lemmy.ml, but it’d be nice to know there’s some recourse to mods pushing an agenda or propaganda.

I think a lot of Lemmy users and admins are finding something out: social media is hard.

Reddit sucks for a lot of reasons, but I can’t point to a single social media platform that exists now or in the past without major flaws.

That thread filled with people who got banned from Lemmy World. You think everyone there is arguing in good faith?

And some of the reactions to the new ToS have been quite aggressive towards the admin team, even though there is nothing there that changed how people can use our site. Be a decent person and you are welcome, that is the document’s purpose.

We had reactions telling us “fuck off corporate shills” and “suck my balls” and publicly stating they will be a problem and then it’s Shocked Pikachu when they get banned and start threads everywhere.

As you pointed out, people who sign up on Lemmy World have to agree to these terms by typing “I agree” in the sign-up form. We’re looking into other options for existing users.

am not a lawyer

We.

“vote manipulation” is not a real thing on the internet. Nobody is being elected to a position of power. Ergo the conditions required for the word to apply do not exist. The reason is not there. Having your post at the top of a web page for an hour is not equivalent to four years of direct influence upon policy.

Concluding that a couple extra updoots on a post merits deletion of someone’s identity is more obviously bad behaviour than the problem it attempts to address, which is no problem at all.

Why are we copycatting the place everyone is trying to get away from?

It’s not about defining it, it’s about giving yourself a pre communicated basis to remove content that may be disagreeable but not strictly illegal.

For what I expect are similar reasons the list of forbidden image and text content gets so detailed:

5.0.6: No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse. No erotic or otherwise suggestive media or text content featuring depictions of rape, sexual assault, or non-consensual violence. All other violent content requires a NSFW tag.

I now know from this list that posting Hieronymus Bosch’s “The Garden of Earthly Delights” would be problematic even though it wouldn’t occur to me that medieval illustrations of fictional torture would break the rules. And I now no longer know whether this instance considers the usage of variously themed slurs as against the rules, especially in contexts where they’re not direct personal user attacks.

What is socially acceptable obviously varies widely from culture to culture, and definitely instance to instance. The brief list from the previous version helped me to identify the overall culture of the instance to figure out if I would be welcome here. Now instead I’m just not sure if a sweet Aztec decorated human skull from c. 1350CE is allowed because it is half literal human remains, half turquoise, haematite and gold mosaic.

I appreciate that finding the balance here is very difficult. It may just be because it’s late and I’m tired, but I feel less certain about what the expectations are with this version than I did the previous. I hope you will consider returning a bit more detail to section 5.

That statement is a bit like someone saying ‘all lives matter’ in response to people saying ‘black lives matter’ after another black person is gunned down.

“I’m not insulting you specifically. I am just saying that I think all jewish people are secretly space aliens who eat children” and so forth. It is not bullying because it is not specifically targeting a user. There is no violation of privacy and they held short of talking about what they want to do to that ethnic group. And “harassment” is incredibly nebulous

In a good faith interaction: Common sense prevails and that is flagged under the spirit of the rule (even if I am not sure if I agree that IS against the spirit of it). But you specify stuff like this to remove any ambiguity. Largely for the same reasons you have a TOS/COC to begin with. Wheaton’s Rule was “sufficient” for small message boards back before any of us really cared about bigotry. But even that was largely replaced with real rules the moment the user count broke the hundred mark.

But also? The world is a really shitty place where the best you can generally hope for is that social media is only kind of racist and hateful (oh reddit) rather than being run by literal white supremacists. Text about discrimination goes a long way toward saying “Hey, we are at least trying”.

So is the thinking that a catch all 5.0.1 sufficient? Or will there be restoration of specific rules against discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

Did you guys talk to a lawyer before doing this? Cause I think a lawyer would explain to you exactly why.

You probably should have talked to a lawyer before trying to draft up a legal document.

There are very obviously groups of people who are targeted for violence, threats, harassment and abuse based solely on who they are. Ginger, blonde and black haired people don’t experience this.

By making it explicit in a ToS or set of rules that attacking these groups of people is against the rules, the Admins could’ve made those users feel just a little bit safer and welcome on their server. Removing those explicit rules makes them, by contrast, feel unsafer and less welcome. That’s one of things .world admin team have achieved with this change.

Nobody is saying transphobia specifically needs to be called out*.

It is more just actually calling out discrimination. I ANAL (and am not a lawyer) but general catch alls like “No discrimination based on the grounds of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, or religion”. Transphobia comes under a mix of gender and sexuality.

But also: When you are dealing with a TOS, you get a lawyer involved (which is another clear issue with this but…) rather than going by what some dude on the internet vaguely recalls of some documentation they read a few months back.

*: Although, there is an argument that hatred toward the trans community has reached the point that it is worth a call out

Should there also be entries to cover … a million other specific labels

Is there significant and active discrimination happening to those “millions” of other specific labels where people show up dead on the news in the majority of countries and that exhibit targeted hatred online? Can you point out a single example for a ginger or a blonde being killed because of the color of their hair? Are there statistics about this from various countries?

singling out Transphobia a form of predjudice

No, that’s very disingenuous and sounds like rhetoric someone would use to ease up the rules about transphobia. I’d argue that what you’re doing is a form of semantic manipulation.