Done, sorry about the right wing spammers yall. I've been quite busy with coding recently.
edit: Also, I'm not sure where they're brigading from, but just keep using the report button and we'll get to them as soon as we're able.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2022
9 points (84.6% liked)
lemmy.ml meta
1406 readers
1 users here now
Anything about the lemmy.ml instance and its moderation.
For discussion about the Lemmy software project, go to [email protected].
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
o7
Thanks a lot!
My instance already has a rule "No Nazis, QAnon or conspiracy whackos", I banned the founder of that community.
lol how this comment could get downvoted :)
Please give...
- Nazis
- People who spread right-winged ideology
- Conspiracy people
- Pedos
... never a voice on Lemmy.
Such people and groups abuse platforms to win new people for their purposes or to confuse, lie and deceive others.
Thanks for reaction so fast in this case btw.
Please note that there is nothing inherently wrong with conspiracy theories. I think it should be obvious that there have been tons of big conspiracies throughout history. Uncovering current ones is probably in the interest of most people and should not be frowned upon.
What you consider conspiracy people are probably only those with baseless claims or just plain wrong arguments and I agree with @[email protected] here: As long as the discussions are civil and presented facts not obviously wrong, I do not see a problem.
Conspiracy
As long as the discussions are civil and presented facts not obviously wrong, I do not see a problem.
This contradicts itself, if something is a fact then it is not a conspiracy theory.
I highly disagree here, I see a lot of problems spreading shit like 5G causes Covid and such discussions, they confuse others, they have no value at all and they are beyond anything. To the best of my knowledge is not a conspiracy theory discussion btw. There is a difference, this is what you actually mean.
This contradicts itself, if something is a fact then it is not a conspiracy theory.
This is no contradiction. The thing is often not all facts are available and there is a lot of room for interpretation. For example, looking back at history: The tobacco industry claims nicotine is not addictive. Facts: At the time not entirely clear to the public. Should you be allowed to discuss about the tobacco industry conspiring: Yes, absolutely.
But it seems the meaning for conspiracy theory has shifted to theories only crackpots come up with and stuff that generally is not true. The original meaning of the two words taken separately still makes a lot of sense to me. Also how would you call a theory about a conspiracy that is actually likely to be true?
- If facts or scientific research is not available then it is simply a normal discussion, rumour or suggestion. This is still a difference and not per-se a conspiracy.
- Facts and conspiracy theory have nothing to with each one another, you can also spread conspiracy theories with, so-called facts that might be contradicted or debunked later based on new research evidence or on misinformation. Combining everything usually goes hand in hand, someone thinks he knows xyz and then start to spread moral panic.
- You mix conspiracy people, as generalization term with people who deliberately spread misinformation.
Now drop the topic, this thread here is not about conspiracy people and I am not here to explain you what it is, check Wikipedia.
During the late 1990s the overwhelming majority of people in my community believed in creationism and were against teaching the theory of evolution. I witnessed several debates in which metaphysics, the bible, and bad statistics were used to argue in favor of creationism. But even in these debates the opposition was highly controlled. The works of authors such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins were forbidden, and these authors were demonized because they were 'immoral atheists'. I was dumbfounded by the degree to which the catholic majority would censor and distort information.
Regardless of whether I agree with the majority or not on a given topic, I would never fight for censorship because you never know when you will be part of the minority that the majority has chosen to label as "misleading" or "demonic" or "conspiratorial" or whatever.
On the other hand... There is clearly some trolling/baiting/spamming going on in that community. I think that if you ban the community or the user they will continue trying to stir drama. Looks like some kind of trolling weekend project. I am not sure what the best way to deal with that is.
Yhe purpose of rules and moderation is that everyone behaves well, eithoit personal insults etc. Not to decide what is true or false (thats what discussions are for).
If its really misinformation like you say, it should be no problem to debunk it with actual arguments. And if you dont like the community, you can personally block it.
If its really misinformation like you say, it should be no problem to debunk it with actual arguments.
you just opened a conspiratorial box of Pandora on lemmy.ml
What I'm talking about is just to come up with a position and indicate it in rules.
And you want to ban people just because they have a different opinion. To me that sounds much more dangerous.
It isn't "opinion" whether vaccines/masks work or not.
I understand your point, but I think what we all learned very recently is that idiots will be idiots regardless of what you show them.
Look at people from /r/joerogan for example, antivax and antimasks and such. No matter what information you show them, they always have their own biased (non factual, wrong) sources. They just hide in that. Is it not better to just cut the propagation of false information from the start? Avoid the congregation of sick/wrong ideas?
As they say, you can't convince someone with facts out of a position that they ended up in without looking at the facts.
No, but you can convince them by being close enough to them that your distaste for their nonsense is palpable and constant.
That can't happen if you've chased them off though.
You can't actually convince them that the way they think is wrong. They're programmed at this point. Refusing to give them an echo chamber is the best option.
Its just spam at this point and should be dealt with accordingly
deplatforming works, though.