Seems to be purely to post misinformation with repeated claims that Russia is innocent and the US caused the Ukraine situation, that they’re stopping Ukraine from agreeing to Russia’s super amazing peacedeals, etc.
This is the sort of garbage one would expect to find on ML or Hex, is CA intended to be the same low quality instance?
Unlike Xitter and Reddit where black box algorithms spread information to users’ feeds, Lemmy uses people’s vote to increase or decrease proliferation. It seems to me that the posts in that community aren’t going anywhere given how people have voted on them. The primary filter seems to work as expected. Maybe there isn’t need for another.
Having a less popular Nazi bar is still having a Nazi bar.
And communities take time to grow, it’s only a month old. There isn’t any benefit in letting it fester until it’s a bigger threat.
If the litmus is not having a Nazi bar, I don’t think that’ll ever happen unless we gate community creation. On the wider fediverse, it’ll never happen. I think it’ll always be about how unpopular it is and we should use that as the litmus. The scaleable approach is people’s votes and personally this is why I’m on Lemmy.
So you suggest never trying to do anything, because you can’t be sure it will 100% be gone forever?
Think of it like a weed, when you see one you pull it out and move on with your day. Gardens require constant tending to.
I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that we’re already doing something and it seems effective. It seems to me the democratic process we have is already pulling the weed out.
I won’t be mad if the admins delete that community, but it seems we’re already controlling how far it gets. If I saw high upvote rates which makes the misinfo spread wide, then I’d say we’re not doing a good enough job through the standard process and perhaps an additional action is needed.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
Deleting a community is worse than Russia invading Ukraine?
Huh good to know.
If we examine the two possible actions: (1) banning the community, and (2) not banning the community. Then we can see that neither (1) nor (2) have influence on Russia invading Ukraine. That has already happened and is happening.
Both actions, (1) and (2), are not worse than the invasion.
Russian propaganda has an impact on it.
Deliberately allowing yourself to be a hub to spread it is ridiculous.
I totally agree.
I think this argument is our main point of disagreement. In my opinion, censorship is a bad way to address misinformation. It creates parallel groups of thinking, each, from their point of view, growing more confident that they know all.