Admiral Patrick @ admiralpatrick @lemmy.world

Ask me anything.

---

Read more

Posts

11

Comments

167

Joined

1 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I did test a few posts with a lot of removed comments (both on my instance and Lemmy World), and the overhead wasn't terrible since scoping the modlog to just the comment ID is pretty lightweight. Since HTTP/2 is pretty common (which can re-use connections), there's not overhead of additional TLS handshakes slowing things down.

From a network traffic standpoint, Gzip compressed JSON is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things.

!whitelistsilver

Put them in the body. I'll downvote every archive link used the post url because it obfuscates the source.

Yes, those are called "Opinions / Editorials / Letters to the Editor" et al. Both News and WorldNews have rules against opinion articles as well.

Are we? I feel like that's a pretty necessary "/s" considering the mental gymnastics I've heard IRL and on Lemmy. If they edit their comment to add that very necessary qualifier, I'll happily throw 'em an upvote. As-is, I genuinely have no idea.

And idiotic absolutism is why we're in this mess.

Good job!

Edit: If you meant the /s on your comment, my bad. There's just so many insane takes going around, I kind of need that to differentiate.

They nuked their account, but you can get the gist of it here: https://dubvee.org/post/dubvee.org/2659753

(I restored the post and undeleted it locally, so it should show up)

Hi, Dot/Joker/000:

You gonna nuke this account and all conversations attached to the posts, too?

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Is Xhitter an article? Is this unsubstantiated image?

No and no.

Please familiarize yourself with the rules OP.

Nothing for or against the content, OP, but removing since it violates rule 1 which prohibits political posts.

That's good news (hopefully). Thanks!

Will keep an eye out, but community is remaining locked until the clarifications are published and deemed acceptable.

I explained that in another comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/14408131

My stance has always been keep the server/instance rules generic / non-micromanaging and let the communities do what they do (so long as they're in compliance with the generic server rules). That's pretty much been LW's stance until yesterday.

Re: fiefdoms

Many times I've seen new communities spring up as alternatives and people slowly (sometimes rapidly) moved over organically. That's one of the big benefits to the Fediverse. My experience has been that, letting the Fediverse do what it does, the problems will generally sort themselves out as bad mods/instances are identified and avoided with alternatives springing up to fill the gap.

I'm with you in spirit, but I can't and won't endorse that kind of behavior (not even saying that to cover my ass; I'm truly against it).

However, should that occur organically (and it will), feel free to shine a "I told you so" spotlight onto it.

As I understand it, yes, that is the intent of the policy. However, as-written and presumably as it is to be enforced for all mods LW-wide, it has wide-reaching implications with worse side-effects.

Basically, the proper tool is a scalpel and they brought out a machete.

I never said I was against the goal they were trying to achieve, just the means by which they're using to achieve it.

I'm mostly with you, though with a much more strict stance against allowing misinformation/conspiracy/etc. On that:

The beauty of the fediverse is that I also have no problems with someone setting up a competing community that takes a much less tolerant perspective and has a rule that participation is conditional on agreement to certain perspectives.

That's what this new moderation policy abolishes: That competing community is now apparently required to platform misinformation, propaganda, et al while also being more or less required to spend time refuting every claim lest it stand unchallenged. As I said in the announcement post, it's holding the doors open and saying "no, after you" to gish-galloping the mods and platforming every crackpot conspiracy, propaganda, "civil" hate speech, etc so long as they're civil and not spamming it.

Yeah, the Fediverse allows for "just moving to another instance" but for the largest Lemmy instance to force a "both sides" stance on its entirety is a slap in the face.

Vote manipulation is common in Lemmy. While the actor described in that post has changed tactics (and that post barely scratched the surface), they certainly did not stop. All they need to do is boost the misinformation and downvote the rebuttals when previously, the misinformation would just be correctly modded.

Yep, sure do! But only on my own instance in accordance with our polices; communities I moderate elsewhere are modded according to those instances' rules and TOS.

If someone does nothing but give out downvotes (the upvotes-given to downvotes-given ratio threshold for the automated ban is quite generous), then they're contributing nothing but negativity and shitting on things for everyone else. If everything here displeases them so much, they can and should go somewhere else.

I stand by (and have reviewed) every automated "Mass downvoting" ban my automod has issued.

It definitely does not seem like a well thought out solution for sure.