I think it has more to do with how not taking violent threats seriously enough has led to escalation into real world violence.
Say cunt and whatever but this is a pretty tone deaf post in a world where the Myanmar Genocide, enabled significantly by Facebook's lax moderation practices, is ongoing.
In case Im not the only one who's heard of this for the first time:
“In 2017, the Rohingya were killed, tortured, raped, and displaced in the thousands as part of the Myanmar security forces’ campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the months and years leading up to the atrocities, Facebook’s algorithms were intensifying a storm of hatred against the Rohingya which contributed to real-world violence,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.
You're not alone. It rung a bell somewhere in the back of my head, but I couldn't remember pretty much anything about it and was about to search it up myself.
There's a difference between moderation and censorship of "bad words". I can call for the violent genocide of another people without a single "bad word", but I can also praise humanity using nothing but curses.
The underlying problem is, that moderation serves the interests of advertisers, not people. KFC will happily advertise between calls to genocide in a third world country- it's finger chopping good. But if someone says fuck next to a coke bottle, the apocalypse is near.
That doesn't sound like an underlying problem that sounds like a coincidence and like greedy idjits doing the thing in the wrong way
Like yeah, content that doesn't call for genocide is also more advertiser friendly in addition to being safer for marginalized communities in the real world.
I think the solution is a moderating format that involves more open source work, assign accounts a value that weighs their reports by how serious the accusation is, but also by how often they've turned up credible reports in the past, have the report come with three parts, the reported post or comment, the rule or rules the reporter think it violates, and a text box for them to give some explanation of why they think it breaks the rules in case it isn't obvious.
Once someone has a high enough rating and volume for reports, earmark them to become a paid moderator.
Und voilà, you have home grown community moderators familiar with the rules and with sneaky ways bad actors try to get around them, along with a process to quickly get more whenever you launch in a new community.
In semi-related news, yesterday I got suspended for 3 days from [email protected] for joking about the death of a billionaire and from [email protected], also for 3 days, for airing misgivings about a collaboration between Chinese and Hungarian cops.
Getting banned from [email protected] is incredibly easy as they’re super sensitive about china and anything negative gets deleted or gets you banned. They love simping for prc/ccp and pretending they’re not.
Shit my final ban was just for saying that I don't remember there being much mass rape during the US revolution.
It's incredibly ironic that these are the people who created Lemmy because they kept getting banned from reddit for saying liberals should be dropped from helicopters.
I've seen a few posts advocating various ill fortune for billionaires get removed. As I said somewhere else, I can kind of understand it from a CYA perspective. The staff don't want to turn into a violent conspiracy hub. On the other, billionaires are ruining the world for everyone else and defending them is fucked up when viewed like that.
I wasn't even advocating for anything or celebrating a death, just making a dark joke about not caring because it was a billionaire. I mean, I definitely DO consider billionaires and hectomillionaires inherently harmful, but unless they're KNOWN to be truly heinous like Trump, Kissinger, or Limbaugh, I don't go anywhere near as far as to actually celebrate their death, which is what the rule specifically forbids.
I get how there has to be a limit, but joking about not caring about some billionaire who wasn't even a public figure? That's not harming anyone unless you're saying it at the family or sadistic shit like that 🤷
I think you have to know your audience. Hyperbolic threats of violence from someone I know isn't violent make me laugh, they are not mean, they are funny.
This is a very important key point. I’m a 41 year old conservative who grew up in the rural midwest in the 1980s. I was a teenager during the 90s.
When I cut my teeth on philosophical arguments, learned how to talk deep into the night about disagreements of the complex problems facing humanity, it was in the context of hanging out with my tightest friends from high school and college.
We could say pretty much anything, and because we had each other’s backs in the world, it was easy to fit in lots of potentially-ambiguous messages with confidence they’d be received well.
But online we’re interacting with people outside our social groups, from different cultures. As much as I personally hate it, it may be necessary to sanitize our words here moreso than elsewhere in order to avoid misinterpretation.
It’s just a totally different social context. And for people of my age — again I’m 41, born in 1982, graduated HS in 2000 — it’s a hard transition to comprehend because we did our social formation before online discussion with strangers became a norm.
We had online discussions before, but they were more niche and embedded in more stable communities. I remember being part of a forum around 2005 and I knew the people I was talking to. Not from real life, but from our many, many discussions. Instead of hundreds of millions, that forum had like a thousand members.
So I do think it’s healthy for people in real life to be unafraid to use extremely violent, absurd, insulting language, because that helps people bond. But online it may just not be necessary.
It’s less even about knowing the person directly, as it is about having the same microculture. Like back in the 90s I could assume any teen dressed like me would have roughly the same values and mannerisms as me. Now that’s not the case, because the internet has blurred the associations between different elements of culture.
In Tumblr culture, these hyperviolent responses aren't made at the end of a heated argument, but rather meant tongue-in-cheek.
For example, imagine one person posts "love pineapple on pizza". Then another person responds "Do not dare to put pineapple on pizza or I'll skin you!".
It expresses that the second person has strong opinions about pineapple on pizza, but hopefully everyone involved knows that it's an empty threat (because everyone is anonymous on Tumblr) and that it's not meant serious at all.
Nah, it's actually about the hyper that makes violent comments okay. Hyperboles are usually used to make something apparent, in this case what's being made apparent is the irony.
For example:
"Hey, can I go to the party?"
"No" hard to interpret if it's a joke
"No fucking way dude, if I see you there I'll fucking raze your household to the ground for 4 generations" < this is such an exaggeration that is simply can't be true, which in turn implies that yeah, they can come.
Of course, for it to be effective that must sound completely impossible to the listener, and as always context is important. Of the context of my hyper violent message is that I'm talking to my friends, they will know I'm joking.
Sure, but he's had a lot of words to explain its hyperbole and he hasn't yet.
So purely based on the context presented, he comes off as extreme and doesn't properly justify it in his later posts. I'm not going to research every single person's background I come across, so you can bet this guy comes off as unhinged based on these posts.
purely based on the context presented, he comes off as extreme and doesn't properly justify it in his later posts. I'm not going to research every single person's background I come across, so you can bet this guy comes off as unhinged based on these posts.
He’s posting on a platform that’s dependent on advertising and moderated based on the whims and tantrums of a nepo baby. It’s not going to be an “anything goes” situation.
I just banned from /politics for saying "All Billionaires Must Die". Thought Lemmy was supposed to be transgressive. I thought wrong. Probably get banned from here too, now.
lemmy.world is relatively more rightwing compared to other instances. Idk if you'd get banned on lemmy.ml or lemmygrad or hexbear. I'm not sure what the beef/drama defederation status of those is tho.
Oh I'm surprised you got banned. I tried to argue with someone like yourself as I think it's stupid, and then they pushed some argument about how communism/socialism is the right way forward and I was being downvoted.
Thought it was just Lemmy subs being extreme left but maybe not all places are extreme.
All people must die, including billionaires. None of us are immortal, therefore we all must die.
However, billionaires should be dragged into the street and bludgeoned to death and any one who has a problem with me saying that such that they need to flex their little online fiefdom, they can die next to them.
Imagine being such an edgelord that you need the little rush of wishing death on bad people. Reform society, take their assets, stop them from ever hurting people again, whatever. Actually fix the problem like a rational human, don't solve it by calling for their deaths you fucking caveman.
I've recently joined Tumblr, and like this has been the best social media I've ever joined, just what I asked to be shown, no annoying recommendations that are the complete opposite of what i like or it's just plain ragebait
The amount of actually nice posts is really cool
And from what I've heard their data collection is decent, not a personal data vacuum like other sites
Yeah... Um... I got Bluesky for that.
Tumblr doesn't allow for adult content. Plenty of artwork I make falls under adult content and is occasionally straight up porn. Many artists I follow also create a mix of SFW and NSFW content.
Being on a place like Tumblr essentially means losing nearly half the art i can post or follow.
So... No thank you.
Well I know about writing a thread and the UI for that is horrible too, but doesn't it look different than this? Also his profile looks completely different between the two posts.
The fact that people are afraid to say stuff like corpse, death, kill, sex, penis, vagina and other normal fucking words is absolutely ridiculous.
Inwas watching a video and someone was afraid to say corpse because they might get a strike against them. What the fuck is this pussy ass world coming to.
Why the self censoring? Is fuck a "worse" word than shit? Do you censor yourself when you talk verbally?
Just seems funny that on a post about saying whatever the fuck you want online, you say "Ive seen the word fuck before" without actually saying the fucking word.
This post is about pearl-clutchers, and policing yourself to avoid getting banned from a platform. He's not demanding people start cussing on the internet more.
Just like in real life, it always depends on the tone imo.
If the other person picks up what you are putting down, everything's bueno. If you are in a safe space where you agree to not hurt one another, don't be an asshole. I think that a lot of people are not okay with themselves and don't know how to deal with it other than hurting others and being a cunt. Of course these people should get help but as a person who is easily taken to a bad place mentally by the comments of others, it is better to avoid this altogether.
I am aware that victim-blaming is a thing, and that this may come off as doing so. All I'm trying to convey is that if you know yourself and have the choice between browsing the internet and improving your mental health, please chose responsibly. But I'm not an expert so Idk🤷♂️
Generally when you make these kind of accusations, its polite to provide some evidence of your claims. There is a pretty large gray area that exists when moderating subs like worldnews and politics, so such communities are almost constantly beset with accusations of some type of bias.
Modlogs exist, if he has clearly been manipulating posts then it shouldn't be hard to find the evidence.
I've already had this conversation yesterday and provided links. Check my comment history and the mod log, why rely on a biased source provided by me when you can just verify the truth for yourself?