We’re looking to put together some more detailed rules on what should and should not be submitted to the instance. Things such as, but not exclusively:

  • What types of message you would always like to see removed on sight
  • Whether there are any types of message which should be left up (borderline, with strong corrections from the community)
  • Where the line is drawn on political views (and how gray areas should be treated)

I’ll make no bones: Moderating uk/ukpol has been a learning experience for me.
I’ve learned that there often isn’t much difference between “leaving a comment up because the community has done an excellent job highlighting flaws” and “I should have removed this hours ago, the community shouldn’t have to do this”.
As there isn’t a way to mod-tag a post, inaction on negative posts can reflect badly on the instance as a whole.

Having some clear guidelines/rules will hopefully simplify things.
And more admins should mean that if a report isn’t looked at, someone can review it as an escalation.

I’ve also enabled the slur filters. And we’ll be listening to see if anything needs adding/removing (the template had swearing blocked :| )

So…Answers on a postcard, I guess!

  • clara@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    alright, since i’m first up to comment, i’ll start with an easy one

    tiananmen square massacre denial should probably be banned or removed on sight.

    i’m making this suggestion because there is a… particular… audience and demographic in the fediverse that for some reason, has issues with accepting this. i will not name this audience, because this same audience also likes to brigade posters that dare to stick their head up above the trenches and point out that actually, some of their takes might be verifiably wrong. i hope that not naming them reduces my chance of being detected, and then drawing targeted fire. one of us had to be the person to point it out, so i guess it’s my turn.

    by all means, debate casualty figures, sure. debate why there were protests, sure, that’s not the thing i have issue. but if a poster is trying to sincerely argue that nothing happened, in my opinion, it’s a strong indiciation that the poster is acting in bad faith

    how to implement this as a rule? maybe i would go with “no denial of historically verified massacres”? it sounds obvious really, but if you don’t spell it out, people can and will say “ahh but the mods didn’t say i can’t! 🥴”

    i dunno how you want to go about it exactly, but yeah.

  • Biohazard@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I believe that free speech shows people’s true colours and allows you to see who to block and who to listen to.

    We should listen to all opinions even if they’re wrong and stupid.

    I think its better to leave something up even if its offensive so long as its not spam.

    • Absolute_Axoltl@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My gut reaction is to agree with you. But at the same time I wonder if it’s far easier for me to take this stance because it’s very unlikely that I will ever be the target of any kind of abuse. I sit in a very safe position, very much in a majority in almost any way other than things I can choose. So despite my first thought being much the same as yours I can’t by election but think I should instead listen to other voices around me?

  • wildeaboutoskar@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Key thing I think is no transphobia (or racism against GRT) For some reason they are the two things that still seem acceptable in UK online spaces and it’s just depressing.

  • Syldon@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please do not go down the line that I have just experienced from worldnews@lemmy.ml

    Someone asked the question regarding a slur “the river to the sea” that is being bandied about by some. They could not understand why it is considered antisemitic. I gave an explanation and a link to a newspaper article. This got me a 2 month ban for being antisemitic.

    My post questioning this here.

    Just show some common sense when instigating bans. At the very least respond when someone questions a ban. And finally be prepared to accept a mistake has been made.