My point is: Rule 1 is vaguely-phrased and has been repeatedly cited as justification for censorship. ESPECIALLY here on Lemmy.world.
“Be nice”.
Anyone dishing out any inconvenient truths about the world can be accused of not “being nice”. It’s the perfect catch-all for censorship happy moderation.
It might as well say, “don’t say anything that might be considered controversial by the hivemind”
Perhaps. I don’t think I’ve stepped out of line but text can be read in so many different tones.
You ever get into a debate where the other side won’t even meet you in the middle at some source of ground truth and the reality that you have to make them aware of is impossible for them to perceive in a way that doesn’t sound threatening to their entire worldview? It happens all the time. That’s not being a dick. That’s the reality of these types of discussions. They are uncomfortable but essential for a healthy democracy.
I wasn’t directing it at you specifically, just a general commentary about the pseudo-anonymity that many internet commenters feel they have and the resulting attitudes and responses because of that. The core reason for vague generalized rules like Rule 1 is because people will be dicks, just because they can. And that manifests in hundreds of different ways that are hard to account for in a general community rule structure beyond something simple like, don’t be a dick.
The issue is that as rules get more specific, those types of users/trolls go out of their way to skirt around the edges as closely as possible without breaking them, and usually very vocal about not breaking the rule in the process.
On the flip side, vague rules means moderation can be viewed as simultaneously both heavy and light handed depending on perspective.
My point is: Rule 1 is vaguely-phrased and has been repeatedly cited as justification for censorship. ESPECIALLY here on Lemmy.world.
Anyone dishing out any inconvenient truths about the world can be accused of not “being nice”. It’s the perfect catch-all for censorship happy moderation.
It might as well say, “don’t say anything that might be considered controversial by the hivemind”
Or, just don’t be a dick. Something many users have a fundamental issue with from my experience over the last 25+ years online.
Perhaps. I don’t think I’ve stepped out of line but text can be read in so many different tones.
You ever get into a debate where the other side won’t even meet you in the middle at some source of ground truth and the reality that you have to make them aware of is impossible for them to perceive in a way that doesn’t sound threatening to their entire worldview? It happens all the time. That’s not being a dick. That’s the reality of these types of discussions. They are uncomfortable but essential for a healthy democracy.
I wasn’t directing it at you specifically, just a general commentary about the pseudo-anonymity that many internet commenters feel they have and the resulting attitudes and responses because of that. The core reason for vague generalized rules like Rule 1 is because people will be dicks, just because they can. And that manifests in hundreds of different ways that are hard to account for in a general community rule structure beyond something simple like, don’t be a dick.
Ahh. Well thanks for hearing me out. I’m glad to be able to describe something that happens to me repeatedly on these types of forums.
Yeah no worries.
The issue is that as rules get more specific, those types of users/trolls go out of their way to skirt around the edges as closely as possible without breaking them, and usually very vocal about not breaking the rule in the process.
On the flip side, vague rules means moderation can be viewed as simultaneously both heavy and light handed depending on perspective.