Unruffled [they/them] @ Flatworm7591 @lemmy.dbzer0.com

wiki-user: unruffled

---

Read more

Posts

350

Comments

667

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

This guy.

iabt

It means the same thing as "versatile".

they do say

the owls are not what they seem

If you feel like you want to always include a xcancel link alongside a tweet screenshot then I honestly doubt anyone would have a problem with it. The "rarely and sparingly" is just to make emphasize that in many cases it's not really necessary, like for memes. If there's any doubt as to whether a tweet is fake or not then I'd encourage you to provide the xcancel link.

yeah man stick to romani children thats the safer option probably

society whacked with a wet trout

i wondered what that was

love feels like a romani child

couldnt agree more

sohn eines schweinehundes!

I quite like the idea of a standard format. It might help to communicate the intent of the community better since that was a problem recently.

Something like:

1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
2. What sanction did they impose? (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)
3. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction. (e.g. the post that was removed, or got you banned)
4. Provide a screenshot of the modlog entry (don’t deobfuscate mod names)
5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be resolved

Maybe?

Hi fuckwit_mcbumble lol,

We are still configuring the threativore automod settings. Initially we will set it to autoreport any suspected violations for human review. Once we have confirmed it is working as expected then it will auto-remove the post or comment with a specific modlog reason to explain the policy.

I think our preference would be to stick to xcancel.com links if you need to link for factchecking. I hadn't given much consideration to archive links though, to be honest. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on those, and I'll review the comments again on that topic. We can always tweak the policy if need be.

“Western” is just a euphemism for white supremacy and “westerner” is just a euphemism for pale skin.

You're sailing very close to the shores of tankie-land with this campist statement.

lol good advice

I think they could be summarized as:

• Opposition to any form of censorship and/or concerns about "slippery slope" of banning Xitter links - i.e., what about Meta links?
• It's important to be able to post newsworthy tweets in order to hold them to account and have a record.
• Concerns about fact-checking - i.e., how can we check veracity of Twitter links if all we have is screenshots?
• Some folks wanted to ban all Xitter links, including screen shots and xcancel links, for a complete blackout.

We've tried our best to address those concerns in the policy above, which is a bit of a compromise position that tries to take as many of these concerns into account as we reasonably could. But of course some are mutually exclusive positions, so it's not going to satisfy 100% of users.

Thanks for the question. The ban also applies to other Xitter-owned domains such as their photo blobstore (pbs) domain.

We had a total of 7 "vouched" for users (you can see this by hovering over the icons). Once a user has been vouched for, then they can participate in all votes unless that privilege is subsequently withdrawn.

That's not correct, see https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35650327/16002405

However, still agree with the general sentiment.

Your submission in "In which I post a graph showing some impact of disinformation on Lemmy, a propagandist disagrees, and someone else summons mods and gets the whole thing removed" was removed for "Anti-jacketing rule."

After some reflection, I've decided to remove this post.

The data from these charts could be explained in a number of different ways. Bots is only one possible explanation, so why jump straight to that conclusion? I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or elsewhere that Lemmy has a serious bot problem. So at best your conclusions are speculation rather than evidence of any disinformation.

It's also problematic from an Anarchist perspective to "jacket" people in this way. Just because someone may be repeating what sounds to you like propaganda talking points does not mean they are shills or state sponsored agents. They might just have a different perspective or political affiliation to you. These accusations only serve to sow distrust and cause more conflict between users.

So, unless you have the receipts about these accounts being state-sponsored actors or actual bots, then you should consider dialing back the accusations and rhetoric on this stuff. Because otherwise you may be perceived to be jacketing others as shills or propagandists simply because they don't agree with your politics.

I'm also concerned about issues of consent with the way you are trawling though fediverse data. Did you seek anybody's permission to use their data in this way, and then to attack them with it? I'm aware it's "public" data but there are still ethical considerations here that you do not seem to have given any thought to.