There has been a lot of discussion about what we should or should not allow in our community. This is not a thread to tell you about a decision, this is a thread to ask your opinion about what is acceptable, and collate this in one place.

We want this to be a friendly and welcoming community to all who are friendly and welcoming. This means a necessary amount of tolerance for those with other points of view. It also means that by definition we can’t have people here that are intolerant of others.

Anyone who has been here for a while knows I am loathe to create a list of what is and isn’t allowed, because I feel that most of it is obvious, and the stuff that isn’t obvious is not simple enough to create a list. But I’ll list some things that I feel aren’t necessary to list, because others think it is necessary. This is not a complete list.

In our friendly community, we obviously don’t allow:

  • Things that are illegal for us to host
  • Doxing
  • Hate speech or other attacks on others
  • Spamming
  • Trolling

Now the question is: what’s ok in our community, and how should we respond? I’m gonna number them for ease of following.

  1. Is it ok to attack public figures? e.g. is it ok to say “Christopher Luxon is an idiot”? “David Seymour is a fascist prick”? “Gareth Morgan should fuck off and die”?

  2. Does it count as doxing if the information is public? How public?

  3. Are derogatory terms or hateful comments for people known for hate ok? Or do these attitudes contribute to an unfriendly atmosphere? i.e. is it ok to say “Kyle chapman is a fucking nazi”?

  4. If what appeared as a genuine discussion turned out to be sealioning or similar, what kind of mod action should happen? Ban the user, leave the posts? Temporary or permanent ban? Ban the user and remove the posts?

  5. Similar to 4, are we ok that anything in the obviously list above is removed on sight? Should a trolling post be locked, or completely removed?

  6. Is there anything not mentioned yet that you feel should not be allowed, should be encouraged, or that would help turn this community into the kind of place you want to visit?

  7. And finally, there have been a lot of voices on this point. Although I’ve made it clear this isn’t what I want, I feel it’s not for me to force on people: Do you think we need an explicit list of rules that state the above?

Over the last week I have heard a lot of concern over the approach that I have been taking to date: We’re all adults here (mostly), and we are a small enough group that we can talk though disagreements as long as people approach them in good faith. In my view this is working, the only negative attitudes I have seen are from people not liking this approach.

However, I have heard from many people with more experience at building communities, and they have raised a lot of concern about this approach. Therefore I am willing to hear what the community is looking for in a Lemmy instance, and willing to change the approach if that’s what people want.

I’m listening, so give me your feedback.

  • David Palmer@lemmy.nzEnglish
    241·
    1 year ago

    Ooo yay, subreddit drama, it’s like I never even left!

    Generally I think:

    • public figures are fair game for criticism or comment
    • “public figure” to me means anyone who has been the subject of widespread media reporting by accredited outlets, or anyone who has put themselves on a platform
    • hate speech is unacceptable in any form; racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc
    • deliberate misinformation and disinformation should not be allowed
    • in addition to sealioning, dog whistles should also not be allowed

    Here’s a list of example comments and whether I think it should be allowed. Big difference between allowing something to be said and approving of it though, before the pitchforks come out.

    1. “Christopher Luxon is an idiot”
      • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
    2. “David Seymour is a fascist prick”
      • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
    3. “Marama Davidson is a racist”
      • personal sentiment about a public figure = controversial but OK
    4. “Chippy looks like he hasn’t finished high school”
      • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
    5. “Grant Robertson is f***ing useless at economics”
      • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
    6. “Kyle Chapman is a f***ing nazi”
      • true statement + personal sentiment about a public figure = OK
    7. “Jacinda Ardern is tearing NZ apart”
      • personal sentiment about a public figure = OK
    8. “Gareth Morgan should f*** off and die”
      • wishing death on someone = Not OK
    9. “Jacinda Ardern is a horse-faced b****”
      • derogatory sexist remark = Not OK
    10. “the jab was a bioweapon that contained nanobots”
      • factually incorrect disinformation = Not OK
    11. “lgbt people are child-molesting groomers”
      • homophobic hate speech = Not OK
    12. “it is impossible to change your sex”
      • transphobic hate speech = Not OK
    13. “a woman is an adult human female”
      • transphobic dog whistle = Not OK
    14. “Māori are over-represented in crime statistics”
      • factually true statement, not necessarily racist depending on context = OK
    15. “Maoris are all gang members and dole bludgers”
      • racism = Not OK

    The only way to deal with this type of content is to remove it, and tell the poster why it was removed. Repeated breaches would indicate the person is acting in bad faith and should be removed from the community altogether with a ban.

    I honestly do think you need a list of rules. “Don’t be a dick” covers a lot of how we want conversations to be carried out, but there need to be some hard lines in the sand for what things are allowed to be said. For example, slurs can be a type of hate speech, but not always. A recent right-wing dog whistle trend has been to claim “Karen” is sexist anti-white hate speech (to disrupt conversations about privileged white people, and no, it isn’t hate speech).

    I have my ear to the ground a bit more than most on these things, so I am pretty sensitive to them, but communities can fall apart pretty rapidly when they’re allowed. I think a list is helpful to community members to let them know what is acceptable or not, and make it clear what type of conversation the community is accepting of.

    • rimu@lemmy.nzEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      Agreed.

      This doesn’t need to be hard - there are plenty of boilerplate “code of conduct” documents for online communities which can be copied or used as a starting point. e.g. https://mycrowd.ca/about

    • winsomecowboy@lemmy.nzEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Moderation is a form of parenting, at an open arms orphanage that accepts toxic pathological psychopaths. It’s a tough gig.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzOPMEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the detailed response! I think your examples strike a good balance, I will work on a code of conduct draft.

    • RaoulDuke@lemmy.nzEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here, and where you’ve drawn the line with the hypothetical comments.

      I worry that any detailed code of conduct will start the armchair lawyers going. As rules get more and more specific, what is and isn’t mentioned becomes increasingly important, which necessitates even more complex rules. I’m not opposed to a code of conduct as such, and it may well be the best option. But I would prefer it stays vague where it can.

      In the end, a lot will come down to the moderators, regardless of how the rules are written.

    • RandomMutant@lemmy.nzEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

      I think intent is also important.

      “Māori are over-represented in crime statistics” is a true statement. But “Proportionally Māori are more prone to crime”, while almost saying the same thing is a dog whistle as it doesn’t acknowledge the generational injustice that has led to such an outcome (over-representation).

      • David Palmer@lemmy.nzEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        You’re 100% correct; intent, context, track record all have to play a role when making moderation decisions. It’s a fiddly game.

    • Thorned_Rose@lemmy.nzEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I partly disagree with the term “Karen”. Yes, it is misused a LOT now (originally a term to call out racist over-complaining women) however it is still sexist. Karen is not gender neutral (it’s always coded female) and racist white men are just as awful as racist white women. The TL;DR I always come back to is that we shouldn’t be leveraging one 'ism against another. Or in this case we shouldn’t leverage sexism against racism.

      Disclaimer: I’m a strong believer in intersectional feminism, I’m mixed ethnicity, queer and have spent a number of years studying how language affects perception and beliefs (e.g. Marked Language, Male As Default, etc.).

      I can explain this in way more detail and write paragraphs out on this (again, studied this for years now) if you really want more information on why we shouldn’t be doing this.

      • David Palmer@lemmy.nzEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        No need to explain, I’m familiar with what you’re talking about, and thanks for bringing it up. I don’t think it should be outright banned like other harsher slurs, but yeah it isn’t polite discourse and is absolutely rooted in sexism and patriarchy. If you see someone using it, and you think they shouldn’t, then by all means call them out and educate them. I wouldn’t go as far as to ban them and remove their comments though.

        My point was really that there’s a spectrum of what people find offensive, and drawing an appropriate line can be pretty nuanced. But I think you do need draw those lines somewhere so people know what is appropriate behaviour.

    • BodyOfW4t3r@lemmy.nzEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Couldn’t have written it better myself.

      I’ll say while I think comments about public figures should be allowed, and I might have some unkind words for certain figures in in-person conversation, I’d rather people talk about the impacts of policy or statements rather than assign people monikers.

      Like I might agree that such and such politician is a wanker, but I’d rather see comments like “that policy will have X negative effect” or “what he said is out of touch because Y”; even if I would agree with “they’re a huge dickhead”.

    • gibs@lemmy.nzEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for this response, couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately while “don’t be a dick” should be easy enough to do, I do believe having strong and clear guidelines will save everyone from a lot of stress and headaches in the future.

    • witless@lemmy.nzEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      As much as I wish ‘don’t be a dick’ would be enough I think we will need something a bit more forceful/pointed, just because the kind of poster that ignores the rule is the kind to whine that their post isn’t technically against the rules. I really like the nuance in your interpretations and agree that it’s a good baseline for a code of conduct.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzOPMEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      In regards to dog whistles, if you (or anyone) sees it can you be sure to report it? If you’re not part of the group being targeted, it can be hard to know that’s what is happening.