0
Speak up now: What should our community guidelines be? (kbin.social)
submitted 1 year ago by HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social to c/politics@kbin.social
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fearout@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] fearout@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

It does, thanks. I have nothing against reputable sources. Just wanted to chime in about filtering/moderating that type of content in general.

[-] HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

I'd say the biggest ones for me are:

  1. Be civil
  2. Be on topic (that's probably a thread on its own to define what that should be)
  3. No editorializing/opinion/commentary in title or post body (save it for the comments)
[-] btaf45@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

I think that can still be done in a follow up comment.

Some reasons why I suggested the rule:

  1. 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.
  2. If I have a different commentary to give than OP, should I resubmit the article with a different editorial?
  3. Up/downvotes will be on the quality/merit of the article and not combined with the opinion of the submitter.
  4. If the commentary doesn't fit within other rules, then the whole post needs to be removed and the article re-submitted.
  5. Any commentary can always be done in the comments, so we're not really taking anything away.
[-] HandsHurtLoL@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

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.

this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Politics

8 readers
1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago