cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/27346179
When an arrogant presumptuous dick dumps hot-headed uncivil drivel into a relatively apolitical thread about plumbing technology and reduces the quality of the discussion to a Trump vs. $someone style shitshow of threadcrap, the tools given to the moderator are:
- remove the comment (chainsaw)
- ban the user from the community (sledge hammer)
Where are the refined sophisticated tools?
When it comes to nannying children, we don’t give teachers a baseball bat. It’s the wrong tool. We are forced into a dilemma: either let the garbage float, or censor. This encourages moderators to be tyrants and too many choose that route. Moderators often censor civil ideas purely because they want to control the narrative (not the quality).
I want to do quality control, not narrative control. I oppose the tyranny of censorship in all but the most vile cases of bullying or spam. The modlog does not give enough transparency. If I wholly remove that asshole’s comment, then I become an asshole too.
He is on-topic. Just poor quality drivel that contributes nothing of value. Normally voting should solve this. X number of down votes causes the comment to be folded out of view, but not censored. It would rightfully keep the comment accessible to people who want to pick through the garbage and expand the low quality posts.
Why voting fails:
- tiny community means there can never be enough down votes to fold a comment.
- votes have no meaning. Bob votes emotionally and down votes every idea he dislikes, while Alice down votes off-topic or uncivil comments, regardless of agreement.
Solutions:
I’m not trying to strongly prescribe a fix in particular, but have some ideas to brainstorm:
Mods get the option to simply fold a shitty comment when the msg is still on-topic and slightly better quality than spam. This should come with a one-line field (perhaps mandatory) where the mod must rationalise the action (e.g. “folded for uncivil rant with no useful contribution to the technical information sought”).
A warning counter. Mods can send a warning to a user in connection with a comment. This is already possible but requires moderators to have an unhuman memory. A warning should not just be like any DM.. it should be tracked and counted. Mods should see a counter next to participants indicating how many warnings they have received and a page to view them all, so as to aid in decisions on whether to ban a user from a community.
Moderator votes should be heavier than user votes. Perhaps an ability to choose how many votes they want to cast on a particular comment to have an effect like folding. Of course this should be transparent so it’s clear that X number of votes were cast by a mod. Rationale:
- mods have better awareness of the purpose and rules of the community
- mods are stakeholders with more investment into the success of a community than users
Moderators could control the weight of other user’s votes. When 6 people upvote an uncivil post and only 2 people down vote it, it renders voting as a tool impotent and in fact harm inducing. Lousy/malicious voters have no consequences for harmful voting and thus no incentive to use voting as an effective tool for good. A curator should be able to adjust voting weight accordingly. E.g. take an action on a particular poll that results in a weight adjustment (positive or negative) on the users who voted a particular direction. The effect would be to cause voters to prioritize civil quality above whether they simply like/dislike an idea, so that votes actually take on a universal meaning. Which of course then makes voting an effective tool for folding poor quality content (as it was originally intended).
(edit) Ability for a moderator to remove a voting option. If a comment is uncivil, allowing upvotes is only detrimental. So a moderator should be able to narrow the ballot to either down vote or neutral. And perhaps the contrary as well (like some beehaw is instance-wide). And perhaps the option to neutralise voting on a specific comment.
When an arrogant presumptuous dick dumps hot-headed uncivil drivel into a relatively apolitical thread about plumbing technology and reduces the quality of the discussion to a Trump vs. $someone style shitshow of threadcrap, the tools given to the moderator are:
Where are the refined sophisticated tools?
When it comes to nannying children, we don’t give teachers a baseball bat. It’s the wrong tool. We are forced into a dilemma: either let the garbage float, or censor. This encourages moderators to be tyrants and too many choose that route. Moderators often censor civil ideas purely because they want to control the narrative (not the quality).
I want to do quality control, not narrative control. I oppose the tyranny of censorship in all but the most vile cases of bullying or spam. The modlog does not give enough transparency. If I wholly remove that asshole’s comment, then I become an asshole too.
He is on-topic. Just poor quality drivel that contributes nothing of value. Normally voting should solve this. X number of down votes causes the comment to be folded out of view, but not censored. It would rightfully keep the comment accessible to people who want to pick through the garbage and expand the low quality posts.
Why voting fails:
Solutions:
I’m not trying to strongly prescribe a fix in particular, but have some ideas to brainstorm:
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/8959162
I had a rod that was threaded on one half and smooth on the other half. I needed the smooth half to be installed into brick.
method 1: chemical anchor
The normal way to do this (I think) would be to cut some grooves into the rod using an angle grinder, drill a hole that has a diameter that’s ~2mm bigger than the rod, and use chemical anchoring. But that stuff is pricey and only lasts ~1 year on the shelf. Thus cost ineffective for 1 use.
method 2: ad hoc chemical anchor substitute
Similar to the above, I wonder if general 2-component household epoxy would work as a substitute in the above method since people are more likely to have that on-hand. I suspect the issue is that it’s too thin and gravity would do its thing and the topmost area would not get filled with epoxy. Hence why I did not attempt it.
method 3: (What I did)
The rod measured at ø=8.8mm. I had no 9mm drill bit for masonry (and that would be too loose anyway). So I used a nominal 8mm masonry bit on a hammer drill. I’m not sure what the actual diameter of that resulting hole was, but it was too tight to push in the 8.8mm rod in by hand. So I tapped it in, dry (no oil or glues). It worked! It feels really solid. Feels like I got away with murder.
Questions
(method 2) Is there something could be mixed with common 2-component household epoxy to thicken it so it acts more like chemical anchor epoxy?
(method 3) Did I take bad risk with fracturing the brick? Is there perhaps a guide somewhere that safely maps brick hole diameter to metal rod diameter? Or is this something is never done and should never be done?
When clicking the cross-post icon, a search box appears where you can select the community to cross-post to. It shows announcement communities that disallow posting. It allowed me to select !lemmyverse@lemmyverse.org. But then when I clicked “create” it just goes to lunch and gives an endless spinner. That’s a really shitty behavior. The user has no idea why it’s hanging when in fact there should be no hangup at all.
I did not know !lemmyverse@lemmyverse.org had restricted posting until I went there to see if I could post directly. The search dialog in the cross-posting form should print a prohibited icon or warning icon (⚠) next to communities where posts are impossible. This would show users there will be a problem but in a way that does not ignore the existence of those communities. And if they select such communities anyway, they should get a hard and fast proper error msg.
Most nodes have no constitution
In an effort to find places to create communities, I browse lemmyverse.net. There are hundreds of instances. Unfortunately descriptions of instances are either empty or general purpose.
This is a terrible organization. No constitution. It’s like these neighborhoods where all the shops try to sell a bit of everything. E.g. like when a tiny shop sells spices, phones, cheese, hammers, rugs, and speakers. Nothing goes together. We say shops like that lack a constitution which defines the focus of their business. When there’s a whole street of shops like this, you don’t know which shop to enter for what you need. You have to try many different shops arbitrarily until you find what you need. The #threadiverse is like that. Not many venues focused on a defined purpose.
Have I missed something? Is there a service or document that only lists specific-purpose #Lemmy and #Kbin nodes?
Centralization in wolf’s clothes
The other problem with the Lemmyverse site is there is no “cancel Cloudflare” switch that supports filtering out all instances that are centralized on Cloudflare. I always have to open the filters and manually remove:
The threadiverse exists inherently for the purpose of decentralization. So it’d be sensible for resources for finding nodes to make it trivial to just list decentralized instances.
Centralization - lack of constitution relationship
The lack of constitution effectively exacerbates the centralization problem. That is, when everything is general purpose, this encourages everyone to choose the biggest general purpose venue -- Lemmy·World, the Wal·Mart of the #Lemmyverse.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/6251633
LemmyWorld is a terrible place for communities to exist. Rationale:
- Lemmy World is centralized by disproportionately high user count
- Lemmy World is centralized by #Cloudflare
- Lemmy World is exclusive because Cloudflare is exclusive
It’s antithetical to the #decentralized #fediverse for one node to be positioned so centrally and revolting that it all happens on the network of a privacy-offender (CF). If #Lemmy World were to go down, a huge number of communities would go with it.
So what’s the solution?
Individual action protocol:
- Never post an original thread to #LemmyWorld. Find a free world non-Cloudflare decentralized instance to start new threads. Create a new community if needed.
- Wait for some engagement, ideally responses.
- Cross-post to the relevant Lemmy World community (if user poaching is needed).
This gets some exposure to the content while also tipping off readers of the LW community of alternative venues. LW readers are lazy pragmatists so they will naturally reply in the LW thread rather than the original thread. Hence step 2. If an LW user wants to interact with another responder they must do so on the more free venue. Step 3 can be omitted in situations where the free-world community is populated well enough. If /everything/ gets cross-posted to LW then there is no incentive for people to leave LW.
Better ideas? Would this work as a collective movement?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/6251633
LemmyWorld is a terrible place for communities to exist. Rationale:
- Lemmy World is centralized by disproportionately high user count
- Lemmy World is centralized by #Cloudflare
- Lemmy World is exclusive because Cloudflare is exclusive
It’s antithetical to the #decentralized #fediverse for one node to be positioned so centrally & revolting that it all happens on the network of a privacy-offender (CF). If #Lemmy World were to go down, a huge number of communities would go with it.
So what’s the solution? My individual action idea is to avoid posting an original thread to #LemmyWorld. I find a non-Cloudflare decentralized instance to post new threads. I create one if needed. Then I cross-post to the relevant Lemmy World community. This gets some exposure to my content while also tipping off readers of the LW community of alternative venues.
Better ideas? Would this work as a collective movement?
LemmyWorld is a terrible place for communities to exist. Rationale:
It’s antithetical to the #decentralized #fediverse for one node to be positioned so centrally and revolting that it all happens on the network of a privacy-offender (CF). If #Lemmy World were to go down, a huge number of communities would go with it.
So what’s the solution?
Individual action protocol:
This gets some exposure to the content while also tipping off readers of the LW community of alternative venues. LW readers are lazy pragmatists so they will naturally reply in the LW thread rather than the original thread. Hence step 2. If an LW user wants to interact with another responder they must do so on the more free venue. Step 3 can be omitted in situations where the free-world community is populated well enough. If /everything/ gets cross-posted to LW then there is no incentive for people to leave LW.
Better ideas? Would this work as a collective movement?
@diyrebel
@lemmy.dbzer0.com