all 19 comments

[–]SecretlyHistoric 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

God, yes. It's like definition of shitposting.

[–]Vigte 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well, I sort of understand the first one, after reading some of the salt on Reddit about the plan to place the migrants in the Sanctuary Cities - a lot of redditors were quite upset and said "why don't they go to red districts" etc. So at least it's vaguely accurate.

Second one strikes me as intentional shit-stirring (rather than attempting to convey one's opinion in a reasonable and logical fashion), but whatcha gonna do?

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Second one strikes me as intentional shit-stirring (rather than attempting to convey one's opinion in a reasonable and logical fashion), but whatcha gonna do?

Agree, it would normally warrant a ban if repeated, but the user normally doesn't post stuff like that, so I'm giving them a pass this time.

[–]indianusjones[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, I sort of understand the first one, after reading some of the salt on Reddit about the plan to place the migrants in the Sanctuary Cities - a lot of redditors were quite upset and said "why don't they go to red districts" etc.

Do you happen to have a link or was that discussion kind of, "all over?"

Second one strikes me as intentional shit-stirring

Of course.

[–]Vigte 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Mainly this thread - some in here too

Second one strikes me as intentional shit-stirring

Of course.

Conveniently trim the end of that sentence, which contains the explanation.

Of course.

[–]indianusjones[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not intentional, sorry.

[–]useless_aether 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]indianusjones[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fox and CNN don't count, my brother!

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Well the first one is legit because there was a widely-known story about Trump moving illegal immigrant detainees to Sanctuary Cities.

The second one I agree is garbage, but I'm not sure what a "source" would look like for that.

What do you think of the idea of people being required to submit a 2 sentence comment about why they're posting the post? To give it context. We could build it right in to the submission form.

[–]Vigte 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

An optional input form with 1 or 3 or 5 (or whatever number you like) - where you can post "additional sources" to your main OP? That way linked images can accurately convey this "source"? (not so necessary for text posts, only for link posts)

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah that's a great idea. We've long wanted a way to build a repository of sources for each post itself, that'd be really helpful. Comments can do that too, but to have some sort of formalized way to do it seems like it would be helpful.

[–]Vigte 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's just for the link posts - since it doesn't let you add any context, regardless of it being a news story or a meme.

It would be best if the context was at the top and not buried in the comments.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I agree, it could be right under the title.

[–]indianusjones[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think this is an excellent idea because it gives the reader to check the poster's facts supporting their position.

[–]Oracle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How would you feel about a longer list of cultural norms and guidelines for SaidIt (like what Wikipedia has), so we could add things like this as they come up. "Avoid lazy meme posts that don't source their information"

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The longer the list of rules gets, the harder it gets to explain and enforce, and the more arbitrary it all becomes. I am against creating a huge patchwork of random rules, that's part of what caused reddit to fail, imo. I think there are better ways to address this issue that don't result in tons of moderation work for me to do every day, such as a 2-sentence "submission statement" from the poster about why they think it matters, for example.

[–]Oracle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It works for Wikipedia.

A huge list of rules fails for, say, the United States of America, because the ruleset is 250,000 pages long. But a message board should be governable by, say, 2 pages of guidelines without running into those rules.

[–]indianusjones[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sounds good to me.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

memes are short and pithy. I think you are confusing them for political cartoons.

Memes need no reference, and to not like that is to miss the point.