/s/Passports seems to be breaking rule 4a) "Mods cannot remove user comments that are both in good faith and on-topic."

submitted by ActuallyNot from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

This is hypocritical in several ways.

I already said I'd comply with one of the two options. I wanted to know if I could /s/AskSaidIt which option they would prefer for /s/Passports. You haven't answered if I could ask or not, and subsequently your impatience now results in warnings.

(As you know, I am trying to develop a bottom-up self-regulating management system that is FOTPACH (fair, open, transparent, peaceful, accountable, consistent, honest) and can be used on social media platforms among other things (off-grid prepper communities, freedom rally organizing, etc). Your haste is an example of the issues of top-down management rather than having a community discussion in a designated forum to resolve things. But I digress.)

This is not about SaidIt's policies and I'm not here to change M7. But I am trying to clarify what the existing SaidIt policies are and fine tune our collective understanding of them.

Clearly you and I have different definitions of what "bath faith" means. I can't follow the rules if I don't know what they actually mean.

Further, if I restore that comment and return to /s/All, may I keep ActuallyNot and socks banned because they are already proven bad actors? Or must I restore them too? This remains unclear.

Also, I would have tried this first, had I thought of it sooner, as it may be less controversial than outright censorship/trash removal, though less effective. Here it is, on the chance you or M7 have issues with it, especially were I to go big in a post asking all willing mods to add a bold sidebox message: "Be skeptical of /u/socks and /u/ActuallyNot misinfo as they support harmful big pharma tyranny."

Alternatively, "Be skeptical of shill and sealion misinfo as they support harmful big pharma tyranny." linked to /s/SaidItCommunity/wiki lists (or better that the lists be on Projex.Wiki with more robust wiki tools and history) of who is potentially an infiltrator shill with supporting citations linked.

Why is this even worth discussing? You know we and others hope to develop platforms beyond SaidIt. Even /s/FreedIt may have to determine what is spam and what is free speech. If I hope to host a Lemmy forum I aim to have the manifesto, rules, and guides worked out first to remove confusion and to be as self-regulating as possible. This includes navigating the grey areas. I've also expressed the idea of open-developing terms and conditions templates and standards for all indie sites to employ and build on - and make easier for users to follow (much like CreativeCommons licenses).

You've expressed interest and support for decentralization. Having this conversation to clear some things up would ultimately indirectly help toward that in a small way. I hope you see that now.

And lastly, whether SaidIt grows or not, whether it's on this platform or not, whether they bring more STABs (shills, trolls, and bots) and sealions, we need to be developing better defenses, because they won't stop.

Maybe my approaches here are not good. Maybe there are existing better ways or other new ways we can develop. Maybe, now that I've drafted all this up, as so often now longer than initially intended, perhaps I should make a new post on this to get feedback from everyone.

Thoughts?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

You haven't answered if I could ask or not, and subsequently your impatience now results in warnings.

Of course you can ask. What you can't do is expect special treatment for your rule violation.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

I wasn't asking for special treatment. I was asking for the opportunity for the community to democratically decide.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Go ahead an do that, but expecting admins to wait around while you do so sounds a lot like...

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't know /s/Passports was so popular it required urgent definitive attention on this matter. /s

I was also waiting. We both waited at points. And the ultimate conclusion was thrust upon me regardless.

The nature of this top-down dynamic problematically pervades not only our corporatocracy and their full spectrum dominance, but this management style also pervades our work places, homes, and social media - rather than collaborative cooperative voluntary interactions. Yet, I understand, that there still will be conflicts, whether with a smart ass like me, or the tedious sealion shills, or asstrolls, bots, and spam - and they all need protocols of some sort. Reinventing the wheel to be fair and true is easier said than done.