Hello everyone! If you have not yet seen it, @ernest has handed over moderation to @Drusas @Entropywins @ Frog-Brawler (the tag system consistently messes up the link to FB’s username lol) and myself here in !politics.
First order of business is for you all to weigh in on the community guidelines that you would like to see here. As the mod team, we will weigh all suggestions and then add them to the side bar as magazine/community rules. I’m going to give about 48 hours for users to see this thread and add a comment or discuss.
Please know that the goal is not to create an echo chamber here in !politics, but we want to ensure that there is not an encroachment of rage bait and toxicity. It brings down the quality of the magazine and it discourages community engagement.
For the time being, the mod tools are pretty sparse, so I want to manage expectations about the scope of moderation we’re able to do right now. For now, our touch will be light. Expect increased functionality as time progresses, though. We have 3 weeks of reports on file, so please know we see them. Give us some time to establish how to handle those before you start to see any movement.
One type of story (that I can’t find any good examples of here, so that’s good!) that I don’t like is the hearsay or expert-says types of stories. e.g., former-ex-prosecutor-political-insider says Trump definitely did something bad and will be charged next week.
It’s not real news masquerading as news for clicks and there’s nothing new or real to discuss in the comments.
“so-and-so slams so-and-so”-type articles are usually like this, too. It’s just political bickering and doesn’t contain any new points of discussion. Any comments on these articles is often just more attacking, since that’s where the discussion started from.
I realize these are probably quite difficult to identify and moderate objectively, but I think the community would be better off without them!
This one will be challenging, but we will consider it. Thanks for weighing in though. Even if this doesn’t become a direct rule, it at least points to the kind of community we want to co-create.
Could it be geared to allow content around editorialized content from news sources (e.g. NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, etc.)? Maybe a comment that says sensationalized content/clickbait will not be allowed.
Simply requiring that an actual article is linked (and not a screenshot of a retweet of a Twitter post of an opinion of a screenshot of an article headline) would be a great first step and easier to moderate.
Sadly the Op-Ed section of otherwise respectable news sources are the most contrived and toxic links that get circulated.
I’d strongly prefer submissions be focused on factual reporting as much as possible. I’d also want submitters to un-clickbait titles when necessary.
I can admit I’m getting outnumbered on this. I appreciate you adding your voice to this perspective so that I can re-evaluate my stance on it in an effort to provide this community what it wants.
I can definitely get behind that. Most of the political anger is setup with this pot stirring he said she said shit. Granted, there still is a place for some of the puffery “I’m going to pass a law to do X” even though it may or may not happen. A lot of them can be total bullshit, like hopelessly unpopular laws being put into consideration that have no hope of even getting to vote, let alone passing. But at least that is real politics rather than the simple shit slinging of editorial content today.
To start, I would like to link this graphic to the community guidelines to illustrate where the cutoff is between heated debate and inappropriate bickering.
I haven’t seen that before, but it does seem useful. Having relatively clear definitions of those lines is a good start.
If it were up to be, I’d draw the line at Contradiction, if you’re trying to cultivate a serious magazine for thinkers.
What’s the line you’d draw if I’m trying to cultivate a clown college magazine for trolls? Hehehe (saaaarcasm)
The line would be the same, but going in the opposite direction. :)
My first question is always going to be, what is the moderation policy for Nazi’s/white supremacists/fascists?
Are you adopting a zero tolerance policy for that sort of rabble rousing trash, the iamragesparkle method, or are you going to say your hands are tied unless they blatantly violate the community guidelines?
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, “no. get out.”
And the dude next to me says, “hey i’m not doing anything, i’m a paying customer.” and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, “out. now.” and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, “you didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them.”
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, ‘oh damn.’ and he said “yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven’t forgotten that at all.
This sort of question is why this thread was created. I’m in favor of a zero tolerance policy for fascism, bigotry, and anything that is clearly misinformation. But that’s my personal opinion and we’ll all be working together to decide on what the community wants and what works best. Rules can also be altered as we grow, of course, if our initial guidelines aren’t sufficient.
I’m all in on the punch a Nazi approach here.
Obviously I’m 100% in the camp of “you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.”
Sadly I joined this conversation late, so we will see if others filter in.
I’m very curious as to what sort of community the fedaverse as a whole has cultivated after the reddit exodus.
I don’t disagree, based on the harm that is being done. You may see me comment in that regard, but if moderation rules end up being more lenient than I am personally, based on feedback, that’s what I’ll do as a moderator. It’s about what the community wants and needs in order for genuine discussion to thrive.
Your decisions shape the community, though ;). Too lenient you’ll be reporting to trolls who demand more leniency.
I’m team zero-fash tolerance. It’s the fediverse, they can go kick rocks in gabbit or whatever they spin up.
I’m quite positively bolstered by the number of users advocating for a zero-tolerance policy regarding fascism in the magazine.
I have added preliminary community guidelines into the side bar and have made an overt stance regarding neo-nazism, white supremacy, and fascism.
Thanks for weighing in!
Within reason, given my personal values, I too am willing to be a bit more lenient if that’s what the community wants. Taking on mod responsibilities shouldn’t become my entire life (nor any of the other mods on the team now) and part of that is letting the userbase self-regulate up until a user’s presence becomes disruptive.
I have seen enough users actively combat alt-right content here that I’m happy to swing the ban hammer on neo-Nazi and pro-white supremacy content.
What I don’t want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.
I say this with all sincerity: as a progressive, we need genuine and legitimate leadership to step up and start governing again in the GOP. We don’t need people who were once too awful to embrace getting a redemption arc (a la Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney style), but real and serious political leaders. I would like this magazine to be a place to stay informed about the moves and leadership on the right that are worth building bridges with.
And as much as I hate the entire MAGA crowd, we still need to be informed of their movements and goings on. So I’m not willing to draw the line at no right wing content from right wing sources ever. But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.
I’m for a fair amount of leniency when everyone is being civil, but the line needs to be a bit left of card carrying Nazi.
Anyone advocating against human rights should be banned, because such debates are not fruitful. For example, some of the rhetoric around exterminating the homeless in Fox news has no place here.
Fwiw, I think the fediverse gives bans far less weight. A safe and informative community with a range of opinions on how to improve things should be the goal, and mods should be bam happy to get there.
What I don’t want to create is an echo chamber that only permits the views of people I agree with.
I’m confused.
Do you think I was asking for that?
If so, why?
But I happily draw the line at no neo-Nazi or white supremacy sympathizing.
We seem to be in the same ballpark, I just use stronger language about it.
I didn’t think you were asking for an echo chamber. I added that information to add some transparency so that members of this community may understand more on my perspective and get to know my philosophy a bit more. I wasn’t reacting directly to you by saying that.
I want to be sensitive to outside perspectives (not yours) who may be seeing this dialogue as a witch hunt for them because of my own personal foibles and emotive reactions to their positions on politics, hence all this - what is apparently coming across as - softer language.
Please know, in my heart, I’m more Malcolm X than MLK.
I meant to reply yesterday but I got distracted. I have a pretty large bias against nazis / white supremacists and fascists. Unfortunately, on the fediverse, we’re not going to be able to “out now!” them at the door, simply because we’re not going to be able to tell if they’re sitting behind their keyboard (or phone) wearing a vest with iron crosses, nor will we be able to tell if they have either red or white laces in their Doc Martens.
I think that posting content (or in support of content) that falls into the categories you mentioned should equate to getting the boot though.
No screenshots of article headlines. Always require a link to an article instead.
One of the biggest problems I had with reddit was the posting of editorialized headlines with no source. Once I would find the source (if the article is even real), I often find the article contradicts it’s own headline or lacks any sources for the claims made. Of course, the screenshots would be upvoted anyway because people want to be outraged, regardless if the story is accurate or not.
I would want to qualify this a bit to expand, but in short - I would like to see only content that generates discussion or educates the audience. Memes and screen caps of article headlines (I never knew this was a thing on reddit) fail to educate, so I don’t see that having a home here.
Content may be:
- Direct url to reliable or reputable source of journalism (as determined by Media Bias Charts from watchdog organizations). Post title must match article title. Poster must include lead or nut graf in body of post text. Poster may communicate their interpretation or editorialization of the news item in the first comment.
- Direct link to a YouTube video from responsible content creators - no podcasts but yes interviews with direct people of interest from trusted media sources and journalists, even if this content is editorial in nature. Editorial content (for both videos and articles) should be clearly marked EDITORIAL: [original title of linked content]
- OC threads seeking community engagement and debate (ex: DISCUSSION: How have anti-trans laws impacted you or people you know directly?) - the community space for these may be an “enter at your own risk” because I don’t want to get caught in the quagmire of who has a shitty opinion versus who is a shitty person. For threads like this, I think the most moderation we should be doing should be removing/banning spammers and bots. If users want to feed the trolls in these spaces, then I won’t challenge how you like to spend your weekend.
I’d say the biggest ones for me are:
- Be civil
- Be on topic (that’s probably a thread on its own to define what that should be)
- No editorializing/opinion/commentary in title or post body (save it for the comments)
These are okay, with the exception of giving commentary in the post body. Commentary in the post body might be a good way to tell why you think this could be especially important.
I’ll piggy back on your response here to add in that I would prefer that posters copy and paste the nut graf of the news story into the body of the post.
“Nut graf” is a journalism term for the paragraph that clearly delineates what the article is about. It’s what makes the piece newsworthy. “The paragraph that explains the story in a nutshell.” The nut graf usually appears in the first three grafs of any current events piece.
I think if this is included in the body text (willing to invite more than just this paragraph, but bare minimum this graf), then readers can determine if the larger piece is worth their time to read or important.
I completely agree with this one. I do this out of habit and didn’t even think to suggest it.
I think it’s important since headlines are often just clickbait and the nut graf can cut through some if that to help you decide if you want to click through to the article.
I would probably focus on the lede instead of the nut graf. At least the first paragraph that answers who, what, how, where, why is of importance. Getting into the nut graf might be somewhat complex in some articles, as with many (I’m currently looking at a Forbes article) the nut graf is bullet-point summarized after the lede.
Or maybe either one will do. Although I’d believe that contributors will probably post the lede over the nut graf of an article due to ease or confusion.
Not trying to split hairs with you, but we are talking about the same paragraph with different terms.
Lede: A clash at city hall today resulted in a rushed vote called during a late night session today, drawing criticisms from civil rights advocates.
Nut graf: Proposition HB (number) had been backed by state legislators from almost exclusively one political party. The bill would impact certain people in this specific way. About 150 protestors packed the gallery and spilled out into the foyer as the leader of the bill’s opposition in the state house, state rep So-and-so from the name of county district, lead a 15 hour filibuster that was interrupted prematurely by the lieutenant governor calling a vote on the bill just before the special session ended.
Usually the first paragraph is the lede, while the nut graf is the next paragraph or set of paragraphs.
For instance (the article I was referencing): here
The lede:
Twitter’s revenue from U.S. advertising in April was down 59% from the previous year, the New York Times reported Monday, after major advertisers left the social media platform following billionaire Elon Musk’s takeover—though Musk claimed two months ago the site was “breaking even.”
Nut graf:
Twitter made $88 million in U.S.-based advertising sales during a five week period starting April 1, down 59% from April 2022, the Times reported, citing an internal presentation and seven Twitter employees.
The social media company estimates its U.S. ad revenue will be down at least 56% each week in May, compared to last year, per the Times.
Twitter’s global ad revenue this year is estimated to be 28% lower than it was in 2022, at around $3 billion, according to research firm Insider Intelligence, as Twitter’s top 50 advertisers are spending markedly less since Musk took over the company in October.
I think either or would be acceptable in the body of the post, however I do believe that most users will post the lede over the nut graf just because it’s the first paragraph and the most convenient.
EDIT
At least that’s my interpretation of the difference between the two. You might be correct in that we’re describing the same things, however I see a lot of articles structured like the linked article in Forbes. Seemingly where a lede and a nut graf are both present.
Yes. We are on the same page. Are you also a former/current journalist? I copy edited for a regional paper for a few years.
I think to avoid confusion in the future, perhaps the rule should be quite expansive on this front to accept either. Best practices and whatnot.
The few times I’ve tried posting article links, kbin automatically copied the first X words of the article into the post body. I don’t suppose that includes the Nut graf?
No, usually this is only the first 50 words or first 2 sentences. I have noticed a few posts like this, now that you mentioned it. I thought the users were doing it - didn’t know that was a functionality of pulling in an article for submission.
Thanks for sharing!
No problem. You’ve got your work cut out for you, good luck!
I think that can still be done in a follow up comment.
Some reasons why I suggested the rule:
- It can anchor the whole discussion and responses to OP commentary need to be made at top level. i.e., discussion may become centered around the commentary instead of the article. Especially on potentially polarizing topics.
- If I have a different commentary to give than OP, should I resubmit the article with a different editorial?
- Up/downvotes will be on the quality/merit of the article and not combined with the opinion of the submitter.
- If the commentary doesn’t fit within other rules, then the whole post needs to be removed and the article re-submitted.
- Any commentary can always be done in the comments, so we’re not really taking anything away.
As we collectively discuss this and come to a conclusion that most of us feel a sense of ownership over, I just want to state point blank that I do not want to see duplicate posts with the same link just because two users have opposite viewpoints on the ramifications of the news.
However, I’m fine with one poster giving CNN’s article on a newsworthy event and another user posting the Associated Press’s article of the same event. Those two news sources (among others) will have different perspectives, voices, and information. That lends itself to robust community engagement, to me.
Your #3 is a really good point. If someone posts their opinion in the body, there are likely to be downvotes based on that opinion even when the article has its own merits.
“Be Civil” is the core value for me.
I also have a question, rather than an answer. Should all posts require the URL of an external article? Or are people allowed to post “topic for discussion” and personal opinion posts? There needs to be a place for that, I’m just not sure whether this is it. So far I haven’t found a good venue for that.
Based off Rule #3 I would believe that it’s unspoken. However I think it should be added. I for one liked that r/politics had this rule. This magazine doesn’t have to mirror that, however I believe it’s worth consideration.
That said, Rule #3 could be extended to editorialized media, unless specified that the “editorializing/opinion/commentary” is OP’s. That’s something that should be included.
This is an excellent question and is really up to us as a community to establish. The thought had occurred to me that there’s room in our magazine for:
- politics news that is not US-based
- threads that are discussion only about political events
- responding to something clearly editorial (thinking here if a really cogent YouTuber has a video essay about political matters that isn’t rage bait)
It’s just a matter of community members saying what kind of content they want here and us establishing Badges (we can do that as mods, kind of like post flair).
I certainly don’t insist that opinion posts need to be allowed here, but I think there needs to be somewhere they belong. I guess the question is whether this should be primarily a place to find news or a place for taking about it.
I’m really open to this place being a location to receive information and a place to discuss it, even at a meta level.
Check my response to CurrMudgeon above for my preliminary views (subject to input!) on how we can provide this expectation in the community rules.
Politics is all about opinion. We all have different opinions on how society should be run. If we only allow fact-based reporting, this magazine might as well just be /m/news. Opinion pieces should definitely be allowed. Maybe limit it to external opinion pieces from established institutions to keep content quality high.
I agree with all this. Let’s see how other community members chime in.
I would just emphasize the need for respect in our conversations. That seems pretty important to me.
Excuse me, I reserve the right to disrespect myself publicly. lolol ;)
Self deprecation?? Hold my beer…
Mods might want to consider which sources are blacklisted or whitelisted. Fairly straightforward thing to automate and could cut down on things that are clickbaity or just misinformation. A biased source is one thing but a site that mainly talks about lizard people or aliens probably isn’t reputable.
Might not be worth it to create a list or automation until manual moderation gets too much as that would be a chore to create.
Fully agreed about blacklists and whitelists. I would like to base those lists on something very public and transparent such as the Media Bias Chart so it doesn’t seem like the mods are being arbitrary and targeting one user just because we are opposite sides of the aisle.
I like this a lot.
I would like to see more discussion around handling misinformation. The lines between misinformation, trolling, and someone being genuinely incorrect (which is still misinformation) can be blurry.
However, I personally believe that spreading misinformation is more dangerous than regular trolling. Of course, it can require research to determine whether or not something is mis/disinformation. Obviously this is a complicated subject and other social media platforms haven’t even figured it out yet.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Do you think community engagement should be a response to misinformation or moderation be the response? I’ve already seen some trolls be answered with a flurry of factual links debunking misinformation claims, and it was glorious.
It’s so hard to say.
Something which is demonstrably factually incorrect, which tends to be more in the scientific domain than the political domain, I’m personally in favor of removing so that the misinformation doesn’t spread. However, I also see a lot of value in allowing it to remain and be corrected, especially when it’s not something that can harm people (e.g., “vaccines will make you autistic and kill you!”). But then, what if it remains and nobody bothers to correct it?
I’m looking right now, as another example, at a comment which is trying to factually state that both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are pedophiles, with nothing to back this up. I would consider it trolling in that case, but there are definitely going to be instances where it’s harder to distinguish. And of course, there will always be the crazies who believe utter nonsense.
I’d like to know more about the community’s thoughts before we try to tackle that.
I appreciate you articulating all this!
This might me hard to implement… but could there be a community driven misinformation bank or facts FAQ managed by the moderators?
E.g. whenever a person repeats a clearly false narrative, instead of us participants going through the effort to describe who was indicted when or why bill XYZ doesn’t actually do Q, we can just refer to a corpus of rebuttals on the topic?
I’m interested in this idea, but I have to ask for community support on this project.
Is this something you’d like to take initiative on? waggles eyebrows convincingly
This is a minor point, but I would also suggest not allowing any threads or posts with all capital headlines.
Easy buy in from me. =)
Some forms of humor including unmarked sarcasm (may be akin to light trolling) should be allowed.
Side note: It looks like the italics markup on kbin is actually underlining for other platforms.
I don’t want this place to be a joyless hellscape of too much reality LOLOL
Humor, sarcasm, wit, satire should all be expected in the comment sections. Humor that punches down or is trolling in the guise of humor I guess will just be downvoted to hell. oh well.
Thanks for sharing that bit about italics. I hadn’t realized and have been using italics myself. Do you know if bolding is working properly?
On my screen, bold works correctly. Italics can be produce from either *word* or _word_. But I feel like the latter should be underlined instead.
I would like to see a clear delineation between News articles and Opinion pieces, even if it’s just as simple as asking folks to put News: or Opinion: in the thread title.
Yes, we are triangulating around this. Others have signaled a similar take, and I’m on board with it. We may add “badges” which are similar to post flair from reddit.
To add to this, opinion articles should indicate the author. The publisher of an op-ed is mostly irrelevant and I feel like a lot of political pundits get a free pass by hiding behind publication titles.
Yeah, I see your viewpoint on this.
The only reason why I’m still leaning towards the litmus test being on the news sites versus the author is because the legal teams at NYT are not going to permit “freedom of the press” to be the fig leaf covering a very poor piece of writing, even from opinion pieces.
I’m willing to see the counterexamples, but this is based on my experience as a journalist back in the day.
Having said that, I do think that a poor writer could communicate a lot of bad takes and still get printed. The issue really only comes up when a writer makes baseless claims - it now opens the door for lawsuits against the publisher.
Any chance we can require a secondary comment be posted with article in text form? Lots of these sites are paywalled and I can’t see the articles. There was usually some kind soul or tldr bot to post the article in the comments on /r/politics.
Good idea
I’m with a lot of people here on opinion pieces. Those are often not even based on facts and rarely provide any actual valuable discussion. So those should be either monitored more closely to only let serious substantial opinions through, or simply barred from appearing here.
Other discussions in this thread have highlighted reputable sources of content. This can include NYT opinions and news, but would never permit content from OANN.
I hope this addresses the concern about opinion/editorial content.
I’ve found that some sites have much higher quality opinion pieces than others. For example, opinion pieces on Politico and even MSNBC tend to have a lot of factual back information included for the reader. Do we want to allow those sorts of articles?
I say yes provided that reliable/reputable media outlets are the distributor.
We can’t cut the pie so fine, though. Like that NYT opinion piece from Justice Roberts was garbage, but still deserves platform here imo
It does, thanks. I have nothing against reputable sources. Just wanted to chime in about filtering/moderating that type of content in general.
I think we may need to stipulate and employ the use of badges (similar to submission flair from reddit) so that users can use kbin QoL userscripts to filter out content they don’t want.
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea too
I mentioned this elsewhere, but for an op-ed, the important factor is the author, not the publication. Can we somehow bubble up op-ed authorship and reactor accordingly?
E.g. John Solomon had a good run making it all the way to WSJ and NYT op-eds before being fired.
Maybe my threshold for shit is higher than normal, but my hope is that comments won’t be removed but will be allowed to be downvoted into oblivion. At least when it comes to what could be considered a “political opinion.” Of course there is a subjective line somewhere where a statement crosses from “political” to just “hate.” But if a post is political, my hope would be that it gets to stand and be upvoted or downvoted, no matter how shit it might be.
A bad hot take is different than trolling activity. What I’ve seen the most of is an ineffective version of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. What I’ve seen is summarized as:
Troll: Very strong rage bait content/comment
Community user: Reasonably pissed response that this position is horseshit
Troll: Calls for civility even though they originally were like, proposing to genocide trans people, which is inhumaneThis isn’t a situation to foster. Let this kind of scum in and then they bring friends. Like roaches.
Sure. There is a subjective line where they cross from “political position that is almost certainly bad and wrong” to “bait”. Feel free to remove the bait, leave the bad takes.
What probably matters most is that the rules you establish needs to clearly state that there is a subjective line and that the user’s have to accept that fact. There is no clear rule you can write and be objective.
Yeah, I don’t think the goal can ever be pure, emotionless neutrality from a mod team.
The line may be subjective, but I want it to be transparent. Some rules may be arbitrary, but applied consistently and are sourced from the community who wants to live with them.
I pretty strongly disagree with that one for this reason.
When it comes to fascists, white supremacists, and their ilk, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people.
I’m seeing pretty broad support for not even tolerating even an inch from this camp, so I’m sure this will come out in the moderation rules.
