Mutual_Aid discussion post

Hello users of hexbear:

Due to recent meta posts in our mutual aid community we wanted to open up discussion about the community !mutual_aid@hexbear.net

We will never require explanation or justification from a user asking for aid in the community, and the mod and admin team continue to commit to not featuring an individual's mutual aid request to prevent unfair exposure.

In addition, we will maintain a strict "No critical comments or meta comments" on a mutual aid post.

This post is to discuss the mutual aid community's rule of allowing meta posts: mutual aid as a community, those making posts in it and those commenting on posts.

We are considering removing the exception allowing meta posts but wanted to involve the userbase before committing to a change.

Please comment with any thoughts, feelings, or suggestions regarding this change.

Thank you

227 comments

Wanted to update what the considered changes to the community are in summary:
users can post 3 times a week, asks no more than 100$ each post
display name is changed to "emergency aid"
users communicate if they are open to non monetary resources (local aid groups, etc.)
user requests aid, amount requested in title using [$0/$x] format
users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment
user updates title with amount received and the thread is locked when the goal is met
meta posts are no longer permitted
We will do a follow up post where voting on keeping the community as is or changing it will occur.
If you want to propose changes to this summary please answer in a comment below this one.
do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
do you think we should allow meta posts?
- don't limit the amount requested
- users can post 3 times a week, asks no more than 100$ each post --Imagine walking up to someone homeless and desperate on the street holding a sign that reads "homeless and hungry anything helps" and saying "You've been here every day this week, you can't get anymore aid, you need to leave." That's what this reads like. Limit posts to once a day if you really want to regulate the comm this much, but let the people giving decide the amount. Change the format to require labels like "need for long-term" or something but this just feels like overstepping and a good way to further alienate people who can and want to give more.
  display name is changed to "emergency aid" --pedantic and unnecessary, just avoid the struggle session and keep the comm as it is with the added weekly advice/non-monetary aid posts or something
  users communicate if they are open to non monetary resources (local aid groups, etc.) --people should ask in the comments before offering advice, the posters shouldn't have to add this, it should be a given that unless explicitly asked commenters should just shut the fuck up and move on or wait for a thread where advice is meant to be posted
  user requests aid, amount requested in title using [$0/$x] format --this is fine but it has the potential for alienating those who can only give a small amount or stopping those who could give more from doing so when it should be up to the person giving how much they want to contribute, it's none of the community's business how much is being given
  users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment --it's none of the community's business how much is being given, have the OP update the post title and say thanks or if they're good or not or lock it after 72hrs or something, this just feels like such a huge overstep
  user updates title with amount received and the thread is locked when the goal is met --it's none of the community's business how much is being given, see previous answer
  meta posts are no longer permitted --it's on the mods to determine if this is worth it, but changing a single community rule could address the reason this was brought up
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested? No.
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts? Daily, yes, weekly no.
  do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating? Absolutely not.
  do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid? No.
  do you think we should allow meta posts? I don't think they're happening enough to warrant this.
- What is the thinking behind no more than $100 per post? What if someone is in an emergency that needs more than that, or the refugees who advertise their gofundmes? I think this rule would screw many desperate people over. How does this work with people who use other currencies?
  Also I don't agree with having to request an amount in the title - I ask for food vouchers and will take whatever someone can give. I often have to make multiple posts before getting a response so i don't want to be limited by how much I can ask for or I'll end up with not enough to tide me over from last time while i wait for a response.
  What are meta posts?
  Why are all these changes wanted?
  As far as keeping track, I've found (since i ask for food vouchers that can be donated anonymously) some people prefer to remain anonymous, so they probably wouldn't report anyway. Also very dangerous - for instance, I got trolled on lemmy by someone who kept saying (for weeks) they would send aid but didn't. He got banned. But people like him want to make life worse for people who need help. They would anonymously report to the mods that they had sent us money, when they actually hadn't.
  Weekly limit on amount of posts - this would prevent people from getting the help they need. It took me about 4 posts to get the help I need this time. I had nowhere else to turn.
  All in all I think these changes will remove the only lifeline left for some desperate people.
  The only change I want to see is the ability to reply in-thread removed. I, and several other people here, have had people comment in our threads saying they're going to help, and then they don't help. Other people see their reply, think we've already been helped and then don't offer any help. It costs us help we would have had from other people.
- This is my reply to the dm, which I'm also going to post here.
  Are you happy with the community as it currently is?
  No. It isn't very effective at getting aid.
  users can post 3 times a week, asks no more than 100$ each post
  3 times a week is too few and $100 ain't shit. If there's to be a money limit, it needs to be much higher.
  display name is changed to "emergency aid"
  No opinion.
  users communicate if they are open to non monetary resources (local aid groups, etc.)
  Good idea. Only if the user communicates it. No unsolicited offers, because 9 times out of 10 they probably won't help.
  user requests aid, amount requested in title using [$0/$x] format
  I usually do this anyway. I think it's a good idea.
  users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment
  Potentially good idea, but unless they provide receipts I don't think this would work out. What's to stop someone claiming to have donated to make others think the need is already met when it hasn't been?
  user updates title with amount received and the thread is locked when the goal is met
  Good idea.
  meta posts are no longer permitted
  Bad idea. There needs to be mechanisms for community discussion.
  Just woke up, might have more thoughts later.
- I was just reading and upvoting occasionally up to this point, but I am strongly opposed to a $100 limit (or any financial limit for that matter) and feel I need to directly say so.
  There was a time a few years ago where my wife and I were very close to homelessness. We asked in a mutual aid channel of a discord server I sometimes participated in (similar vibe to here, effectively anonymous, mostly just people asking for cash if they need it and giving cash when they can), and thanks to a few very generous people we were able to raise $600. She’s immunocompromised and diabetic, it would have been the two of us and a cat with no car, unable to find work, no way to store insulin, no way to buy insulin, almost certainly unable to mask effectively during a pandemic, and with no friends or family we could turn to. We needed every penny of that money and, through sheer luck and several close calls, managed to avoid the worst case scenario and have now gotten back to a fairly stable living situation.
  If there had been a $100 asking limit I am certain that reality would have come to pass and we would not be where we are now. I cannot see any way in which any limit on how much people can ask for will actually, provably help anyone, but I can easily imagine a scenario where a limit endangers or kills people, our comrades and our loved ones.
  
  I think the theory is that a limit to how much each person could ask for allows for more people to use the comms for help, as most donators will have a limited amount to give each week. I agree it's just too rigid in practice to be a useful change though, especially since the admins couldn't give exceptions without effectively endorsing the fundraiser, which they understandably don't want to do.
  
  I see people saying this but without evidence that proves putting a limit on fundraising would actually allow more people to be helped overall, we are just deciding what to do based off of vibes/what sounds right. Personally, I don’t think that’s good enough when considering such a serious rule change.
  especially since the admins couldn't give exceptions without effectively endorsing the fundraiser, which they understandably don't want to do.
  For sure, it seems pretty far out of scope to expect mods here to decide who is and who isn’t entitled to extra help. I know leaving it up to the discretion of those giving poses it’s own problems, but I think it’s better (or at least more manageable) overall.
- Here is my public position.
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
  No.
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
  No.
  do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
  No.
  do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
  Put it to a vote.
  do you think we should allow meta posts?
  No, put it to a vote.
  users communicate if they are open to non monetary resources (local aid groups, etc.)
  Unnecessary. This already occurs when requested.
  user requests aid, amount requested in title using [$0/$x] format
  No. Add rule to ask to voluntarily do so if it fits the context of their needs.
  user updates title with amount received and the thread is locked when the goal is met
  No to a hard rule. Yes as a voluntary obligation to requestors as they are able to and no unless specifically requested.
- Limiting the amount requested is a fucking awful idea
- IMO as someone who frequents the mutual_aid community when I can, we should not be policing posters there with respect to how much they've received or how much they can ask for. A consequence of this being an anonymous online community is that there's no way to know whether someone is being honest, and that is something we should just accept. Others have said this, and I agree with it: if you want to know you're helping someone who needs it, join a local org.
  Potentially a limit to the number of posts could be helpful. However, I understand why people desperate for help would make posts in a short period of time. I would leave that one to people in the comm who need help.
  Meta posts calling out other users feels too much like a witch hunt and I believe it's unproductive (for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1). I feel like mods should handle grievances like that if we choose to handle it at all.
- users can post 3 times a week, asks no more than 100$ each post
  I don’t like the idea of setting a limit on dollar amount. That would be a huge setback for users who are asking for help with things like rent, bills, and losing your house to an IDF terror attack.
  As for limiting # of posts per week, I think the problem of visibility on that comm needs to be looked at: even before I ruined it for everyone, I noticed that donations would dry up the moment my post got too old and stopped being “hot,” even with a lot of bumps.
  I’ll address the other stuff after I take a nap.
  
  because different users can set a different default post sort it is difficult to do anything on the back-end to increase post visibility. I don't think you ruined it for anyone i just think that right now so many people need help and the average person here may be more strained than before.
- Mutual aid shouldn't have any strings attached to it, nor should asking for it have any limits.
  I personally think meta posts are fine. If someone is adamant that another is 'scamming' - go ahead and post that shit in a separate post from their mutual aid request.
  users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment
  dumb
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
  no there shouldn't be any sort of limits or conditions on mutual aid.
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
  no there shouldn't be any sort of limits or conditions on mutual aid.
  do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
  no there shouldn't be any sort of limits or conditions on mutual aid.
  do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
  no there shouldn't be any sort of limits or conditions on mutual aid.
  do you think we should allow meta posts?
  yes, if someone wants to cry about another user - let them. I don't understand what the point of this post/discussion is even about other than the 'X poster is living in his relative's driveway!!' post from a few days ago.
  didn't we LITERALLY have this same discussion half a year ago when the same thing happened and decided to let meta posts be a thing but not let those people comment on the actual mutual aid post itself???
  
  yes but the only time the right to make meta-posts was exercised resulted in a lot of people asking for it to be changed resulting in this check-in post
  
  Fair. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as I was yelling at you (and realize my OP can be read like that).
  Thank you for all you do!!
  
  Thank you for commenting!
- Setting a limit is pointless as it's all voluntary anyway. I want people to be honest about their needs.
  I think a posting limit is good as it will give a better overall view of people's needs in the comm. Those needs don't typically change throughout the week unless it's an emergency
  I don't like the idea of this, it's very micromanagey
  Name is fine
  No meta posts, it's disgusting when people attack each others credibility here and it hurts both the accused and accusers. I don't expect people to be 100% honest here, if they feel the need to lie in order to get fed I'm not going to hold them to the same moral standard I would hold someone who's financially stable and well fed.
- tldr: NO
  Im still failing to see a problem with how things are currently run. can i get more info without calling anyone out? i read thru these replies and im pretty confused about this and why things even need to change.
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
  how tf are we equipped to know what constitutes a proper limit?
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
  how would this even help? what problem is this addressing? are people upset about scrolling by requests? those people need to just block the comm.
  If we're bound and determined to "fix" the issue for comrades who just can't stand to see people asking for money, maybe a major format change could be something like a featured megathread instead? i don't even like that idea at all, I'm sure that idea has a major downsides but i still think it's better than trying to limit posts.
  do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
  that seems like an awful lot of work for the mods. i don't want my donations tracked either.
  Furthermore, what is the endpoint of this accounting, besides eventually questioning aid receivers on the "proper use" of funds received?
  do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
  
  i hate semantics, hate hate hate hate hate them.
  do you think we should allow meta posts?
  "meta" as in users attacking or questioning aid receivers, like hella super
  
  "meta" posts as in like...directing donators and requesters to aid programs, yes!
  Sticky, sidebar something that might help people get aid they didn't know was available, or help donators wantin to direct their funds to more accountable, established aid programs might be nice.
  gotta be
  alla these ideas just seem like means testing with different coats of paint.
  Are people donating really upset about their donations not "doing what they should"? I... really think those folks need to take a deep breath and reevaluate what it means to give.
  What funds spared will not prevent people needing money again; no matter how we wish it were different. No matter how "well" the receiver spends it. Offering a donation —no matter how high— is never enough payment towards the right to judge how well it is spent.
  Those who want to arbitrate "proper" use of donated money should either donate to an org, or put their money where their mouth is, and post their budgets!
  Then they should sit on their hands and listen, contrite, as their comrades explain sanctimoniously how their spending could be better directed towards more mutual_aid.
  
  You might not like semantics but "mutual aid" has a meaning and key to that meaning is "mutual aid is not charity" (hence it bring mutual). Right now the mutual aid comm doesn't really function like that, and personally I don't think there's way its set up could ever function as proper mutual aid - which is fine but if you've ever done real life mutual aid work it doesn't look like people asking for cash donations and some cadre giving them. Like semantics or don't, that's the motivation.
  People tend to get attached to mutual aid as a name because it's a cool horizontalist leftist thing to do, but we don't enact that stuff and just take the name.
  
  Idk, I think the name still works. Right now I'm In a position where I occasionally ask for assistance, but I have an interview coming up that may change that and even allow me to give back to the community. Sometimes the mutuality just takes longer to kick in.
  
  i see what you mean about "mutual" but if we get bogged down with semantics, even if we changed the name wouldnt we just as easily be arguing over what constitutes "emergency"? i guess we could talk about the proper meaning of 'mutual aid' but this is an online communist community, the current name falls closely enough to wikipedias entry which I'll put up for all:
  
  Some of the things in that definition do not fit how this comm is run, youre right. i think that is natural, tho, limitations of the format, and if changes are really needed —probably my professed hatred of semantics makes it obv i don't think they are— we should if anything strive to more closely meet the definition of mutual aid rather than force-fit the name to what it currently achieves.
  
  some users of the community feel that they have to make multiple posts to even be seen which makes other posts harder unless they also make multiple posts.
  the point of accounting is to help posters to update their post with amount received and lock it when the need has been met so other posts can receive the aid
  meta as in posts related to anything outside of posting asking for aid, comments bumping it or comments replying that they've send the aid which would include both posts detailing suspected scams as well as lists of non monetary aid
  
  thank you for the explanation
  
  of course thank you for speaking up at, after reading other commenter's perspectives I have reached out to everyone that has used the community this month to get their feedback. we really do want to make the community as helpful and sustainable as possible for the people using it and really it seems that sticking with the current "Mods do not vet individual mutual aid requests. Donate at your own risk" is the best course of action and we will likely ban critical meta-posts of specific users going forward
- input for all of these changes should prioritize c/mutual_aid users thoughts first and foremost. from what i've gathered reading this thread, most of these proposed changes are from users who don't interact with c/mutual_aid or are themselves donors. this is not prioritizing the community members most impacted by these changes and instead they're being ignored, combatted, or scared shitless by these potential changes. these changes have very real and potentially dire consequences for these users. all this doesn't feel right at all.
  
  some of the suggestions were from private messages from people receiving donations feeling that the current state of the community is not healthy. you are correct about the changes if any should priotritize the community members that would be most impacted. I will reach out privately to those people to see what they think should happen. Do you think that we should keep meta-posts?
  
  reaching out to them all privately would be good. to answer your question, with how the meta-posting has gone in this thread, i personally think we shouldn't keep meta-posts as too much harm can come from them.
  
  i sent messages to the people who posted there this month and we will weigh their opinions on the community much more heavily than others
- I agree with everything except limiting the amount requested. That seems arbitrary and would make the comm useless to people who need more than $100 (or whatever limit we would set), as emergencies often are more costly than that especially in the current economy. Imo the other requested changes would greatly improve the experience for both requestors and donators without setting a hard cap on how much someone can ask for.
  
  This
- A posting limit might be okay but I don’t think we should limit amount asked.
  Tracking would be nice
  No need to change the name, it’s just semantics at that point.
  No meta posts, if users have actual proof of scamming, they should submit it to the mods and admins.
- do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount requested?
  I don't think this is very helpful, different people will have different financial situations, and if we are trying to focus more on emergency aid, some emergencies are much more costly than others. I think this will actively encourage "spamming" at the start of a week and the comm will get flooded with requests all at once, making it much easier for some to slip through the cracks.
  do you think there should be a weekly limit on amount of posts?
  This one I agree with, especially with a focus on emergency aid, though I think the mods may have to make exceptions in very specific circumstances, someone having two massive disasters in one week is rare, but not unheard of. I doubt it will ever actually come up though.
  do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
  I like this idea a lot. I would rather donations not be loud public displays, I don't feel comfortable donating in such a way, but just a simple tracking system will go a long way, while not actively spotlighting anyone, plus I think seeing locked posts that have had their goals met will be good for morale.
  do you think we change the name from mutual_aid to emergency aid?
  I think since mutual aid is probably a bit too difficult to do over an online anonymous system like this, it is probably better phrased that way.
  do you think we should allow meta posts?
  I think a monthly meta thread could be good, one that enables people to ask for aid that isn't necessarily financial, more things like advice and support. It could also be a good way to "allow" meta discussion without it taking over the comm.
  
  I think a monthly meta thread could be good, one that enables people to ask for aid that isn't necessarily financial, more things like advice and support. It could also be a good way to "allow" meta discussion without it taking over the comm.
  I like this idea. A regular megathread of advice and resources would actually feel more like mutual aid than just charity.
- users donate and report the post with the amount donated, mods note it or report it with a message indicating they donated so a mod can comment
  i think this could be used for potential harm to user's aid posts. i remember c/mutual_aid users mentioning an issue of people not following through with aid after messaging for their details. what would happen if someone reports that they sent funds to a user when they actually didn't? would confirmation default to the person receiving aid?
  do you think mods should keep track of amounts received via user reports after donating?
  i don't think mods should but i don't have an alternative that i can think of right now to fully answer this question.
  
  With this proposed system people who say they sent funds and don't will first be warned and then sitebanned.
  
  How can you verify they did send them?
  If its just asking the recipient to verify wouldnt it just be he said she said?
  
  If someone repeatedly comments on the post to say they donated and the recipient says they didn't get it we would take action. in the event of a user reporting the post with something to the effect of "i'd like to donate to this please notify" then we can do the same thing.
  You are correct that at the end of the day it is he said she said but we would establish matrix communication for the sending of proof
  
  we would establish matrix communication for the sending of proof
  I hate to say it but fabricating screenshots is so easy that I struggle to believe such a system could work if used in bad faith by even one person
  
  I hate to say it but fabricating screenshots is so easy
  to demonstrate:
  
  please pet my nose tho
  
  :carrot:
  
  :D
  
  that's true but I hope that both users pledging to donate and those asking for money would be engaging with the site in good-faith
  
  I just don't think, especially with money at stake, that it's reasonable to hope that every single user who ever uses the comm will do so in good faith, or be obvious enough in their bad faith to be sussed out. And even one person with an axe to grind could potentially get someone banned with fabricated evidence. I think we have to build systems that are resilient to abuse where possible and the strong possibility of disciplining a user in need of help feels worse to me than allowing someone to collect donos and not update the post to reflect them. I guess you could say that any mod action being taken requires multiple reports from established accounts showing a pattern of behavior, not just one and done. That would help.
  but frankly sending screenshots back and forth offsite also overcomplicates the process of both donating and receiving donations. It just doesn't feel like a well fleshed out plan to me
  
  exactly why we have set it up as "Mods do not vet individual mutual aid requests. Donate at your own risk" the option to report a post or comment on one with amount donated is to help the poster update with amount received / lock when need is met.
  
  I just think there's monetary incentive not to engage with the comm in the way you've laid out, and people are (understandably, they're struggling) mostly not going to do it unless it is an enforced rule or nets them more donos.
  Whether or not such a rule actually would do more good than harm, I don't know.
  
  the incentive to dispute that a donation occurred is the limit. if there's no arbitrary limit per post/week imposed, then both parties can engage in good faith
- No.
  Maybe?
  Yes.
  No.
  No.
- Hey I'm glad to see this situation getting attention but starting out the discussion post with
  This post is to discuss the mutual aid community's rule of allowing meta posts: mutual aid as a community, those making posts in it and those commenting on posts.
  We are considering removing the exception allowing meta posts but wanted to involve the userbase before committing to a change.>
  Please comment with any thoughts, feelings, or suggestions regarding this change.
  and then turning around and saying "okay here's a list of sweeping changes based on feedback" feels like a major shift. I didn't post any generic suggestions about what to do with the comm because I thought the post was intended to be specifically about one rule changing
  anyhow, of that list:
  No
  Yes.
  Lean no. Depends on how its implemented.
  Don't care
  Yes
  
  This includes various suggestions made by users and mods both on this post, others and the mod chat
  
  my reading comprehension might just be bad on this tbf. I read it 3x before realizing the second half of that first quoted line I posted was opening up the floor to a broader discussion.
  anyhow, I think slap-dash tracking of donos could easily end up worse than doing nothing. we don't want to deanonymize people more than necessary, we don't want the system to be exploitable for harassment of specific users or be hard to navigate.
  similarly leaving no avenue for complaints seems bad. The (very uncommon, less than once a month) meta-posts attract so much attention because there are some genuine scams going on, not just because they're bringing out reactionary sentiments (though there always seem to be at least one or two comments that go too far). And unless mods are going to police what is and isn't a scam, social pressure and metaposts are the only outlet this stuff has. It's a very thorny thing to balance but I'm glad we're trying to improve it