Done, sorry about the right wing spammers yall. I've been quite busy with coding recently.
edit: Also, I'm not sure where they're brigading from, but just keep using the report button and we'll get to them as soon as we're able.
o7
My instance already has a rule "No Nazis, QAnon or conspiracy whackos", I banned the founder of that community.
lol how this comment could get downvoted :)
During the late 1990s the overwhelming majority of people in my community believed in creationism and were against teaching the theory of evolution. I witnessed several debates in which metaphysics, the bible, and bad statistics were used to argue in favor of creationism. But even in these debates the opposition was highly controlled. The works of authors such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins were forbidden, and these authors were demonized because they were 'immoral atheists'. I was dumbfounded by the degree to which the catholic majority would censor and distort information.
Regardless of whether I agree with the majority or not on a given topic, I would never fight for censorship because you never know when you will be part of the minority that the majority has chosen to label as "misleading" or "demonic" or "conspiratorial" or whatever.
On the other hand... There is clearly some trolling/baiting/spamming going on in that community. I think that if you ban the community or the user they will continue trying to stir drama. Looks like some kind of trolling weekend project. I am not sure what the best way to deal with that is.
Please give...
... never a voice on Lemmy.
Such people and groups abuse platforms to win new people for their purposes or to confuse, lie and deceive others.
Thanks for reaction so fast in this case btw.
Yhe purpose of rules and moderation is that everyone behaves well, eithoit personal insults etc. Not to decide what is true or false (thats what discussions are for).
If its really misinformation like you say, it should be no problem to debunk it with actual arguments. And if you dont like the community, you can personally block it.
I understand your point, but I think what we all learned very recently is that idiots will be idiots regardless of what you show them.
Look at people from /r/joerogan for example, antivax and antimasks and such. No matter what information you show them, they always have their own biased (non factual, wrong) sources. They just hide in that. Is it not better to just cut the propagation of false information from the start? Avoid the congregation of sick/wrong ideas?
As they say, you can't convince someone with facts out of a position that they ended up in without looking at the facts.
No, but you can convince them by being close enough to them that your distaste for their nonsense is palpable and constant.
That can't happen if you've chased them off though.
If its really misinformation like you say, it should be no problem to debunk it with actual arguments.
you just opened a conspiratorial box of Pandora on lemmy.ml
What I'm talking about is just to come up with a position and indicate it in rules.
And you want to ban people just because they have a different opinion. To me that sounds much more dangerous.
It isn't "opinion" whether vaccines/masks work or not.
this ^
deplatforming works, though.
Its just spam at this point and should be dealt with accordingly
You can't actually convince them that the way they think is wrong. They're programmed at this point. Refusing to give them an echo chamber is the best option.
c/drugs would you also delete it? because they spread drugs propaganda, deleting a comunity helps people? people will stop using drugs because you are censoring them? nope you just created the streisand effect
Anything about the lemmy.ml instance and its moderation.
For discussion about the Lemmy software project, go to !lemmy@lemmy.ml.