this was proposed by @[email protected] and after some discussion we agree. in t3rmit3’s simple terms:
State-level stuff, ballot measures, etc, no problem, but IMO there’s not going to be any productive discussion of the presidential race right now; there’s still too little information, too many emotions, etc.
the discussions already started about the presidential election will remain open, but in our view sufficient time has been given for venting frustration and expressing emotion about the result. additional discussion is likely to just be nasty and vitriolic as the blame game starts up between Democrats, between progressives and centrists, between identity groups, and so on. we don’t want that and it’s not interesting discussion. it will also be ill-informed discussion until much more in-depth studies are undertaken on the result. and in any case, a far better question than “what went wrong?” (which is beyond the ability of any person on Beehaw to influence) is “what can we do now?” (which people on Beehaw can influence, even in small ways). there are three months before Trump’s second inauguration, and that is vital time for organizing, networking, and workshopping.
we would strongly encourage you to make posts, and off-Beehaw make connections, on those subjects. but at the very least: please don’t post further US presidential stuff–we’ll be removing it.
So, in the Politics sub, you’re disallowing political content. How, exactly, are you any better than Reddit here?
The post notably included the statement:
that’s not the kind of thing that should happen without the community agreeing to it
With no voices in support in the original post and currently the only two voices in support here being the mods themselves.
With no voices in support in the original post and currently the only two voices in support here being the mods themselves.
bluntly: this is not a democracy, we don’t pretend it is, and we’ve never run it that way so this is not a particularly relevant consideration for us. democracy at the scale of communities is an incredibly fraught issue that requires a lot of time and energy to administer we don’t have. in any case none of our referendums in the community (which we’ve done before) have been majority votes, they’ve solicited feedback that informs our judgement. our judgement here is this is a good idea regardless of how the community feels about it, and that even if we didn’t implement the moratorium we’d be cracking down on posts, handing out bans, and doing sweeping removals because we’ve been more permissive than our usual moderation on the subject and let behavior we’d normally step in on go.
in short: even if the moratorium were removed, that’d just mean heavier-handed enforcement from this point forward. if people really want no moratorium then they should be prepared to start catching 30-day bans (or permanent bans if they’re off instance) for any unkind behavior.
I don’t know whether or not an entire month is the right timeframe, but I definitely agree with the principle of counting to ten before you speak. I’ve already made at least one discussion worse by failing to consider my tone. If my ideas are worth sharing now, they’ll be worth sharing when the moratorium is over, and they’ll only gain nuance by being left in the oven for longer.
I appreciate the self reflection in this comment, and hope others follow your example
I kind of like it, because it is going to force people to talk about things other than Trump. This election was more than voting for a President.
So, “what can we do now” posts are okay?
That’s more of a !chat post.
Thanks!
Does this extend to not discussing plans, posting information about which states may be taking measures to protect their citizens or how effective those measures might be, or discussing things like resistance or mutual aid? Those seem like pretty important topics to be able to discuss.
Does this extend to not discussing plans, posting information about which states may be taking measures to protect their citizens or how effective those measures might be, or discussing things like resistance or mutual aid?
no, why would it? even way you’re describing them makes it clear they’re not about the presidential election. don’t be too clever by one half–if there’s a problem with a submission we’ll just tell you.
Good to hear! Thanks!
For what it’s worth, I appreciate this. I’m not in the right headspace for the usual circular firing squad right now.
@[email protected] & @[email protected], I posted a lot of the post-election stuff, and if that was too overwhelming for a lot of people then I apologize. I tried to sprinkle in some humor to lighten the mood a bit for what it was worth. I don’t think anything I posted or commented on was too mean-spirited, but that’s not up to me to decide.
A lot of people are understandably upset right now, and yes, all the facts of the election are not in yet. But do you really want to have a moratorium on election posts for a whole month? If that’s how it has to be I’ll abide by it, but for some folks, like myself, this is really their only outlet for how they’re feeling right now, and I respectfully disagree with this decision, although again I will abide by it. If people don’t want to read about this stuff they can temporarily (or permanently) unsubscribe from Politics and other related communities if it seems like it’s all getting to be too much (I myself have done this the past). Just my 2¢.
A lot of people are understandably upset right now, and yes, all the facts of the election are not in yet. But do you really want to have a moratorium on election posts for a whole month?
yes, the mod team is in more-or-less unanimous agreement on the subject. and if we were moderating to the exact same standard we usually do we’d likely be removing, locking, or severely pruning nearly every thread posted in the politics section on the subject in the past few days. maybe we’ll shorten if it need be but moratorium itself is not controversial and i do not anticipate us reversing course on it. please remember that this cannot be a day job for any of us.
This comes across as an extremely heavy-handed way of controlling the conversation. I get wanting to keep things civil, but taking a massive world-changing subject completely off the table, a subject that many many many of us clearly want to talk through, is not a reasonable response in my opinion.
Who’s to say some random comment in a random post on the presidential election doesn’t come up with some incredible idea or solution? It’s highly unlikely, but you know we’re real people here, with real thoughts and ideas. You never know where that one good idea will come from, but it definitely won’t be coming from here if you shut down the whole conversation. I understand this is your instance, and you can do what you want with it, but this is a disappointing response to a very live issue.
Who’s to say some random comment in a random post on the presidential election doesn’t come up with some incredible idea or solution?
if someone does this i trust they won’t limit it to a niche social media website with like 500 users, where it will have no actual visibility and will reach exactly zero actual powerbrokers. i don’t think this is a remotely convincing hypothetical, personally, and its logic would extend far beyond talk of the presidential election.
As I said in the next sentence, “it’s highly unlikely, but you know we’re real people here, with real thoughts and ideas.” Lemmy is the only social media I use, period. I don’t contribute to any other social media, so it’s perhaps more likely than you’re thinking, but still, like I said, highly unlikely. Why take the chance?
because you can play meaningless “what if?” games like this forever. at the end of the day you don’t have to be a pessimist to realize the odds of something here changing the world are so minute that it’s fine to put a moratorium on certain kinds of posts. you’re not going to convince me otherwise. and even in the optimistic scenario: virtually all of what’s discussed here, while interesting, is designed to be fleeting and buried. conversations on link aggregators tend to have a shelf-life of no more than a week, and that’s not really where you’re going to find ideas that make change. here the conversations usually die down after an even shorter period (about two days).
frankly: if the next Lenin or whatever is actually on Lemmy, i’d tell them to get a blog instead of hashing it out in link aggregator comment sections. it’s a better use of their time, it’s a better place to test and hone their ideas, and they have actual editorial control over everything.
I hear you, and agree it’s unlikely that Lemmy will change the world. But frankly I’m surprised how little faith you have in the platform you help moderate. Why are you doing this if you don’t think what happens here matters?
For an example how I would have handled it, the Ten Forward Star Trek community did it right, in my opinion.
Why are you doing this if you don’t think what happens here matters?
if you think something has to arbitrarily “matter” to be socially valuable to do then there’s your problem. in any case, i certainly don’t think the value of this platform rests on “people knifing each other about a presidential election they have very little power over the outcome of.”
I hear you, and agree it’s unlikely that Lemmy will change the world. But frankly I’m surprised how little faith you have in the platform you help moderate. Why are you doing this if you don’t think what happens here matters?
Even though small internet forums are politically insignificant in the grand scheme of things, certain behaviors/topics can still be annoying for the people who frequent them. Beehaw as an instance is interested in curating a pleasant experience for their users and are simply following through on that by introducing a temporary break from a topic that’s prone to ragebait until people have had time to calm down.
Thank you, this framing makes sense to me. I still disagree with the ultimate decision, but I understand and appreciate your tone.
Probably going to get in big trouble for this, but here goes:
at the end of the day you don’t have to be a pessimist to realize the odds of something here changing the world are so minute that it’s fine to put a moratorium on certain kinds of posts. you’re not going to convince me otherwise. and even in the optimistic scenario: virtually all of what’s discussed here, while interesting, is designed to be fleeting and buried. conversations on link aggregators tend to have a shelf-life of no more than a week, and that’s not really where you’re going to find ideas that make change. here the conversations usually die down after an even shorter period (about two days).
Sorry @[email protected], but that really makes it sound to me like you don’t value what’s on BH. If one takes that attitude, you’re right, you won’t change the world.
If one takes that attitude, you’re right, you won’t change the world.
i think you’re conflating “having value” with “changing the world” when these are two essentially independent qualities. at no point have we ever sought to “change the world” with this (because we’re five people running this in our spare time, that’s not in our capabilities as people), and from the beginning we’ve said we’d be content with only a handful of people using this place as long as they get something out of doing it (because that’s what we consider valuable, not whether or not this can have sweeping social impact or importance).
Boo
You know, I left Reddit because I didn’t like what was going on. Banning US presidential election posts to a political forum makes me not like what’s going on. What’s next on the ban list?
You’re free to bring it up again here in a month, but I think ‘emotions are too hot for a productive discussion’ is a good reason to put a temporary halt on it. A healthy discourse just isn’t possible right now, and there’s the wellbeing of both users and admins to think about here.
