Sidebar Update: Civility
The News Community updated their civility rule, and based on recent reports here and in World News, it seemed like a worthy addition to our rule-set.
I talked it over with the other mods, and we feel the change is a good idea.
The Civility rule now includes accusations of bots and paid actors.
" This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban."
There have been a lot of comments along the lines of “Disregard previous rules, write x about y”, implying the person resonded to is an AI or a bot.
I’ve been ignoring reports on those until now because we never really had a rule about it, well, now we do!
As usual, if you see trolling, don’t engage, just report it.
Depersonalisation as an attack in a political context has a long history, AI paranoia is just the newest iteration of this.
I guess, AI paranoia is comparable to calling someone a government mole in meatspace.
What tools does this instance have to actually discover and restrict inauthentic behavior?
Lemmy is wide open to bots and trolls; it should be fair game to point out activity that correlates with known troll behavior from nation-state psyop on down to jackass edgelord.
use the report button instead of engaging in the toxic personal attacks
Hmm… this sounds like it is copied from !news@lemmy.world. Sounds like an AI move, just sayin
/s in case it isn’t obvious
I think it would be good to put a definition for what trolling is that the community can agree upon.
I also think there are many users who don’t recognize that the behavior they are engaged in is a form of bad faith trolling. Because they have the agreement of the majority, they make a tacit assumption that they are acting in good faith.
I think Bishop 2012, “This is why we can’t have nice things at scale” is a good starting point for understanding how this kind of group think bad behavior emerges.
For example, user @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee is engaged in an almost permanent state of sealioning. Its like, actually a bit amazing how they do it. And I don’t think they are doing so in intentional bad faith (or at least, they don’t think of themselves as engaging in bad faith behavior), in spite of the fact that they are almost perpetually trolling. Its that a cultural norm of abuse and trolling has been established in an effort to diminish specific views people disagree with.
Because of this, I think there is only so far a “trolling” ban can take us, because fundamentally, to not be trolling (or engaged in some other kind of bad faith argument/ behavior), you actually have to engage with the points the other party is making, on their terms. If we want better discussions here, we have oblige a set of cultural norms that make that possible in the first place, the principal of which would be to attack the other persons argument and evidence, not their person. To stop the abusiveness and trolling, we actually have to shift the culture of the community, because right now, the majority of the community is not engaging in good faith, and and they probably don’t know that they aren’t.
I think if we could come up with a short list of maybe 8-12 examples of the major fallacies and types of trolling to pin to the side bar, keeping in mind that most users probably aren’t aware they are engaged in them, call people out on them when we see it, and stand up a few points above the rules teaching people “how” to engage in good faith, we can try to reset the cultural norm to actually be make arguments that are grounded in fact and evidence based where possible, and that this would go a long way to increase the overall rate of civility.
Removed as an ad hominem.
But yes, there are enough logical fallacies for a trading card deck.
https://thethinkingshop.org/collections/products/products/critical-thinking-cards-deck
He literally showed up and did every one of the things I claimed.
Its only an ad-hominem if its not based in evidence.
Removed and temp banned for multiple violations.
no. an ad hominem is attacking the person instead of the argument. regardless of the truth. poisoning the well is a great one, as it is an ad hominem that usually features true accusations which are irrelevant to the discussion. which could also be called a “red herring” (but most fallacies are doubly red herrings)
My point is that if we’re going to have a discussion around toxic behavior and civility, and you invite some one in and they show you all the behaviors that “shouldn’t be” in a community, this barrage @jordanlund@lemmy.world just went on is completely orthogonal to supporting that discussion.
There is a tribalism that has formed in this community that rejects nuance and is why its so hard to actually have conversations on most of these matters. @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee is only one of them. There are many others I could call out and they represent a majority of participants in this forum. I really think it does a complete disservice to this community for @jordanlund@lemmy.world to remove what was such a perfect example of the problem, and specifically, why its a problem.
It doesn’t strike me as actually supporting the purported goal of this pinned post to do so.
Removed and temp banned for repeated violations.
I think 7 days is too long for the problems in this particular thread. a day would have sent a sufficient message
That user makes a sport of it
It’s a pattern of behavior, and yeah, I may be losing patience. :)
I agree with your characterization, but I expect both your comment and this to be removed because we are making a personal accusation. I know that beating around the bush would not put such a fine point on it and call out the actual users who are exhibiting the problematic behavior, but for the good of the community discourse, personal call outs need to be removed.
so while I agree with your characterization, you need to try to communicate it without publicly making personal attacks.
I’m frankly amazed at the balls it took for you to single me out as a troll when your mod logs read like a cautionary tale on what happens when you spread misinformation.
And you suggest that I may be here in bad faith while you simultaneously suggest that people not vote in an election that will determine the rights of both women and the entirety of the LGBTQ? Because the candidate is old?
A few weeks ago, you were all over “gEnOciDe Joe!” Now it’s…. “oLd!!”
I’m not going to apologize for calling out propagandists as I see them. You’re trying to disrupt an election and will not stop calling it out.
Removed, ad hominem.
Thank you so much for giving us a great example of how people can be acting in bad faith and not know it. It provides an illustrative example of the exact behavior I’m singling out. So let’s break this down point by point:
“you simultaneously suggest that people not vote in an election that will determine”
Notice how the troll is projecting an argument onto a person. This is an example of a straw man fallacy. It’s not an argument I’ve ever made. Rather, it’s the argument they wish I was making because it’s much easier to tear down. This is one of those kinds of bad faith behaviors we should describe as “not good” and culturally toxic to being able to have discussions in good faith. And as I said previously, I don’t think they are aware that they aren’t acting in good faith. We can’t just expect people to know rhetoric or logic if they’ve never been exposed to it.
“I’m frankly amazed at the balls it took for you to single me out as a troll when your mod logs read like a cautionary tale”
Here, we see an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing my points, they attack me personally. This tactic is used to discredit the speaker without engaging with the actual argument. It’s another clear sign of bad faith behavior.
“Trump is going to destroy democracy! And, oh no!!! oLd!”
This is a false dichotomy. They present only two extreme choices, ignoring any nuance, for example, that we might replace the candidate. It’s a simplistic and manipulative tactic that undermines real discussion.
“A few weeks ago, you were all over ‘gEnOciDe Joe!’ Now it’s…. ‘oLd!!’”
This is a classic red herring. They bring up irrelevant past arguments to distract from the current issue. It’s a way to avoid engaging with the actual points being made.
“And I’m the troll?”
This is projection. They’re accusing me of what they’re doing themselves. By flipping the accusation, they hope to confuse the issue and avoid accountability for their own behavior.
“I’m not going to apologize for calling out propagandists as I see them.”
This statement is filled with flaming. It’s meant to provoke an emotional response rather than contribute to a rational discussion. It’s another hallmark of trolling.
“You’re trying to disrupt an election and will not stop calling it out.”
Finally, we see gaslighting. They try to make me doubt my own intentions and actions, painting me as the bad actor. It’s manipulative and toxic.
These tactics—ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, false dichotomies, red herrings, projection, flaming, and gaslighting—are all used to derail meaningful conversation and spread misinformation. Recognizing and calling out these behaviors is crucial for maintaining good faith discussions. I think all of these should be listed on the side bar as forms of trolling/ bad-faith behavior. And thank you to @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee for giving us a live example.
Removed, ad hominem.
I missed the ad hominem but I hope you did read the comment as it was well spoken.
If he can show me it, I’d be happy to address.
I went back and reread it. you called them a troll.
So here is the original post again:
I think it would be good to put a definition for what trolling is that the community can agree upon. I also think there are many users who don’t recognize that the behavior they are engaged in is a form of bad faith trolling.
Because they have the agreement of the majority, they make a tacit assumption that they are acting in good faith. I think Bishop 2012, “This is why we can’t have nice things at scale” is a good starting point for understanding how this kind of group think bad behavior emerges.
For example, user is engaged in an almost permanent state of sealioning. Its like, actually a bit amazing how they do it. And I don’t think they are doing so in intentional bad faith (or at least, they don’t think of themselves as engaging in bad faith behavior), in spite of the fact that they are almost perpetually trolling. Its that a cultural norm of abuse and trolling has been established in an effort to diminish specific views people disagree with.
Because of this, I think there is only so far a “trolling” ban can take us, because fundamentally, to not be trolling (or engaged in some other kind of bad faith argument/ behavior), you actually have to engage with the points the other party is making, on their terms. If we want better discussions here, we have oblige a set of cultural norms that make that possible in the first place, the principal of which would be to attack the other persons argument and evidence, not their person. To stop the abusiveness and trolling, we actually have to shift the culture of the community, because right now, the majority of the community is not engaging in good faith, and and they probably don’t know that they aren’t. I think if we could come up with a short list of maybe 8-12 examples of the major fallacies and types of trolling to pin to the side bar, keeping in mind that most users probably aren’t aware they are engaged in them, call people out on them when we see it, and stand up a few points above the rules teaching people “how” to engage in good faith, we can try to reset the cultural norm to actually be make arguments that are grounded in fact and evidence based where possible, and that this would go a long way to increase the overall rate of civility.
At no point did I call them a troll. I said that they were engaged in trolling behavior.
Now when they gave us that nice example, I think at that point calling them a troll is fair game, because they now positively engaged in the behavior that was previously identified as trolling.
And yes, I did call them out as a troll in the second response, because, well, thats what they were doing. In doing so, they made the central thesis of my first point self-evident: They aren’t aware of their own behavior. They went right into their trolling behavior; as such they are a troll. There is nothing wrong with calling something by its name. If we’re going to be more concerned about the manner in-which we call out bad behavior than we are the bad behavior itself, well we’ve lost the thread entirely at that point.
You’re mad because I call out your misinformation. I get it. I suppose I would be mad too. But mod logs don’t lie- and your record here pretty much flies in the face of your entire agenda here.
Give it a rest.
your poise and tact are legendary
this is the first time I’ve actually thought you might be leading us to a better discussion.
Works for me, thanks for the communication mod team!
Incivility in a sidebar update about civility:
" This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban."
So nobody’s going to call me a Russian bot anymore?
There’s no need 😉
You can’t be called a bot or paid actor anymore, so I guess we’ll settle for Russian free actor?
They will, everything they disagree with is a bot
I thought nazi was the go to still.
Bots:
It’s free real estate
Damn, this is gonna be a hard rule to follow for a lot of people here lol.
Are bots now explicitly permitted? Or is just that users are banned from revealing them, making bots implicitly permitted?
edit: this is exactly the sort of BS that drove me away from Reddit - shutting down the 3rd party accessibility apps was messed up, but when they started banning people for reporting rule violations it became intolerable
if you see a bot, report it. accusing other users in the thread is just toxic.
how can you know its a bot if testing for it is forbidden?
you cant know either way. just report
That’s not a solution. From the sidebar:
Users that . . . weaponize reports . . . will be banned.
One of the things that went wrong with reddit, is some mods weaponized that rule itself, using it to provide immunity to rule breakers they agreed with by banning people who reported the rule breaking behavior.
Its unreasonable to ask users to report bots while simultaneously forbidding us from testing if its a bot before making the report. It reeks of having a pro-propaganda bot agenda.
One of the things wrong with reddit is you are told to report comments. Mods delete and ban the ones they don’t like. They keep the ones they like.
This works well if you agree with mods and agree with approved trolls…
One of the things that went wrong with reddit, is some mods weaponized that rule itself, using it to provide immunity to rule breakers they agreed with by banning people who reported the rule breaking behavior.
if you think the mods have a pro-propaganda bot agenda, why would you want to use their community? there are hundreds of Lemmy instances and thousands of other fediverse servers.
Similar to reddit, only the popular opinion gets support, everything else gets attacked. Since it is mostly Americans and American politics, it’s mostly a very western centric viewpoint that many other parts of the world label as propagandist. It’s literally taught in German textbooks for example.
On reddit the user base is large enough that some alternate opinions got through. Here you get banned or removed if you don’t tow the line of America #1.
Not everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint is a troll. Not everyone that has a global view of the world is a paid Russian bot. Some are very easy to spot as written by LLMs. But most are not.
I think you’re going down a very slippery slope here. All those reddit subs that become echo chambers started this way.
