Kia ora!
What’s the plans for moderation on this instance? I guess there’s probably going to be a bit of a flood from the NZ-oriented subreddits and this seems like a smart landing place for them.
Lemmy.ml apparently has owners with weird political beliefs, and this is putting a bunch of people off. Is there going to be a set of rules/CoC for this instance?
Also, servers cost money. Any plans for adding a way for users to support the server?
Thanks for setting it up!
You must log in or register to comment.
Hey thanks for raising this. We absolutely need moderation and moderators. This is something we will need to work on together as a community - both a Lemmy.nz and Lemmyverse community.
The (new, reddit-flooded) Lemmyverse has already had it’s first CSAM widely federated, which was reported here as well as on large communities. The community it was posted to didn’t have someone online to resolve it so it stayed up for hours (and was embedded in an innocent looking post). We can ban or remove posts from our instance, but this doesn’t remove it for other instances. That only works if the host instance removes it. But ultimately we can’t deny we are affected by this, and possibly a higher risk since most of the large instances require users to apply for an account while we currently have open registration (which if things go bad, may mean the other instances stop federating with us).
I’m the only admin so far, but this is not sustainable. We also want extra moderators around to handle things within their communities - including users nominated as responsible for building their community. But we need more users with the ability to moderate, even if this is just to remove posts we obviously don’t want here such as the above.
As for more general moderation, this is something that we as a community will need to work together on. I’d like to try an approach similar to Beehaw.org. They have many admin posts talking about this but here is one that outlines what their vision is.
It’s long, so you can be forgiven for not reading it, but basically it says that instead of having lots of rules that someone can then be a dick and point to the rules saying they aren’t technically breaking any rules, instead you should have fewer, more general rules then encourage discussion in the community as to whether it’s the kind of content they want to have in their community. They have disabled downvotes, with the idea being that you can’t get away with downvoting a post you don’t like, you have to actually have a discussion. I’m open to doing this here if it’s what most people want, but I suspect it may not get a lot of support and that’s ok too.
So that brings me to me next point - we do have rules, or at least a rule: don’t be a dick. Rather than removing content that isn’t consistent with the environment we would like, instead we should call out users that are posting content that don’t align with our values, or in some instances a private message may be more appropriate.
I’m keen to hear other’s thoughts on this approach :)
And another note - we, and the core fediverse nodes we interact with, are not mature enough to handle NSFW content. It’s too much of a legal and moderation headache to handle at this stage, so please don’t post it. This may change in future depending on how we grow as a community (both local and lemmyverse), but I expect that NSFW content on Lemmy will probably end up in dedicated instances (there are already some).
As for donations, I’ve had fediservices.nz approach me, and they have provisioned a VPS for us to use. The migration will happen probably in the next 12 hours, and will require downtime. I’m hoping this can be kept to under an hour. If it’s looking bad, I’ll probably roll back to this server and try again later. So anyway, if you want to donate to running the server then you can donate here: https://opencollective.com/nz-federated-services
deleted by creator
I think this is an inherent problem with the kind of approach you’re suggesting (i.e. let people say what they want, so long as they’re not breaking any laws, and let debate/downvoting sort it out).
In my head, it works the opposite. If you have a list of things people can’t do, they will wiggle their way around them to still be an asshole. If your rules aren’t explicit then they can’t be the “actually” guy.
If you just delete any posts saying hateful things, then you get marginalised people trying to participate, they get notifications saying someone has replied with something hurtful, then it gets removed and they just have to accept there are not nice people in the community. Worse, people may turn to DMs.
On the other hand, if someone says something hurtful, and 20 others reply explaining why it wasn’t a nice thing to say, then they get to see that the view is not widely held but hidden, and instead most people do not hold that view.
As an example, in one of our first posts here, the OP used a derogatory term in a common colloquial way, someone replied with a link explaining why it was a problem, then the OP apologised and edited their post.
This is how I hope for things to work. In practice, many people will double down or be trolling, and we don’t have to stand for that. But with my naivety I’d like there to be a chance for redemption.
I think some rules are needed e g. No hate speech, no threats of violence, no doxxing or hacking, no unsolicited sexual stuff, no illegal things, no animal cruelty or child abuse videos, no scams or spam, no advocacy of violence, harm, or self harm, no destroying the functioning of the community, Nazis can go fuck themselves, etc… The usual things so that there’s clarity for mods and users
But also I think some general rules like don’t be an asshole, or these rules are not exclusive mod discretion will be applied as needed to keep this place safe and enjoyable
So the thing is, the more rules you have, the easier it is for someone to be antagonistic and defend their actions with “but it’s not against the rules”. I highly recommend checking out the Beehaw post I linked, as well as reading their side bar links.
This blog post also also helps to explain things: https://eev.ee/blog/2016/07/22/on-a-technicality/
Almost all the things you mention are covered by the existing rule: “don’t be a dick”.
My personal opinion (at this very second, before it has become an issue) is that we should consider having hate speech, threats or advocacy of violence, and nazis stay visible, and having people call them out on it. If it’s trolling, we can block them and remove them, but in the first instance it should be the start of a conversation.
Animal cruelty and child abuse - these I believe are obvious that they are not welcome and should be removed on sight, the user permanently banned, and the event reported to the appropriate authorities. We shouldn’t need a rule to do what is obviously the right thing - but in either case we do have a rule that covers this (the only rule).
Harm or self harm - we can’t hope to be a mental help forum, and this raises legal liability issues (something discussed by other instances). But I don’t think we can have a one size fits all rule here, our approach to this should evolve over time.
“Destroying the functioning of the community” - this seems very subjective, but in any case I think this starts with a conversation, and if it’s clear it’s a troll then at that point we can take action.
I think I addressed each of your items but in any case I think you get the idea of what I’d like to attempt. That is, conversations instead of ban hammers. And encouraging users to call people out if they don’t align with our values. But anyone engaging in good faith should be guided on what we expect here.
The obvious question is “how do we know what is allowed if there aren’t specific rules”: if you think it’s on the edge, then please don’t post it. If someone posts something that doesn’t sit right with you, call them out on it. You are also welcome to report it, but I do encourage discussion as a starting point. Treat this like you would a real life community - for the most part when it comes to personal interactions, our laws are black and white: don’t kill them, steal their stuff, etc. We don’t need a law that says don’t say nazi shit, because if you say nazi shit then either someone will call you out on it or people won’t want to interact with you. I’d like this online community to work the same way, and will advocate for that goal as long as it feels achievable (I’m watching Beehaw closely).
The next obvious question is “if there’s no defined rules, and @Dave is the only admin/moderator, how do we know he won’t let the power go to his head”? I don’t want this to be a dictatorship. I’d like to involve more people as mods and admins, and build a group where we can discuss cases and share differing opinions to decide on appropriate actions as a group. This won’t happen overnight, but I do hope we will get there.
deleted by creator
The “Bill and Ted Paradigm”. You’re forgetting the most important part though: “Party on dudes.”
I think this is ok, but it assumes everyone is commenting in good faith, and that everyone agrees on the definition of “being a dick” already. For a small community (ie under 10k subs) it will work fine but I don’t think it will scale beyond that. Maybe this current system will work for the medium term at least.
Here in NZ there is the HDCA, which lays out some basic rules in law about how people should conduct themselves online (though they aren’t strictly enforced). Might help provide a guide at least.
There are laws around breaching court suppression orders, and those are enforced a bit more strictly. Mods need to keep on top of this stuff to make sure you (the publisher) don’t get fined. I’m not sure how your obligations are affected by federation, but you definitely want to make sure court orders aren’t being breached by content accessible on your instance.
We are small, and it will be good to see to what level it scales. As I mentioned, I am watching Beehaw closely as they are trying this approach and are the second largest instance, likely to hit your 10k threshold in the next week (though they are actively denying new users from signing up).
The HDCA you link is pretty basic. I don’t think anyone would argue we would want any of that, and I think it all falls under the existing rule. In fact, I think our rule covers far more than that list.
Breaching court suppression orders also falls under our rule. My understanding of reporting is that if you report a post from another instance from here, then both instance moderators get a report. We can block a post from another instance, then it won’t show up here.
I think the general idea I’m getting at is that we as a community will decide over time what is or isn’t acceptable, but some things are black and white. This is not intended to be an unmoderated wild west instance where we allow things not allowed on more mainstream social media, instead it should be an inviting place, and we don’t get that from moderators behind the scenes deleting stuff that seems non-inviting based on their opinion.
Note that the moderator log is open to anyone, you can see this by clicking the “Modlog” link at the bottom of any page. However, this is federated, so shows moderator activities from communities on other instances that we federate with. I’d like to be very transparent about moderation and not to be ban-heavy but instead encourage the discussion you’d see in real-life communities.
Harm or self harm e.g. go kill yourself, or someone should put a bullet in them, or here’s a guide to how to be anorexic without getting caught.
I agree with you on the problem of the rules lawyers who try to argue that what’s not specifically forbidden must be allowed, but I also think that a set of defined unacceptable behaviour is not just for determining whom to smite but also for telling new people what kind of place they’ve found.
When I was admin of a place long ago there was a list of stuff that merited instaban and then the additional meta rule which was formatted as a warning “If you create problems here even if it’s not specifically against the rules we will do something about you” which yes very subjective but also fair warning for people like the guy who came to sealion every political thread, and the rather unpleasant person who liked to reply to people’s pet posts with stories about how she killed her hamster.
Harm or self harm e.g. go kill yourself, or someone should put a bullet in them, or here’s a guide to how to be anorexic without getting caught.
I think calling someone out on this is more effective than silently banning someone. It’s more transparent, and shows that we aren’t willing to put up with it. In the case of the last one, probably we would want to remove it and send a DM to them explaining why it’s not acceptable. In this case, the harm in leaving it up outweighs the benefit of transparency.
but I also think that a set of defined unacceptable behaviour is not just for determining whom to smite but also for telling new people what kind of place they’ve found.
I’m not sure that we’ve quite worked out what kind of place this is. But if you have a suggestion that could sum it up in a sentence I’m all ears. However, I don’t think we need to say “no threatening, no doxxing, no telling people to go kill themselves” as I think by listing this you are telling people it’s a place that needs these common sense rules because people often aren’t able to use common sense so need it written down. I’m not sure that’s the place we want or the impression we want to give.
Yeah fair enough.
I can’t say what everyone else wants this place to be, but I’d like it to be a welcoming place where people associated with Wellington and Wellington region can socialise, make friends, get support or recommendations, and discuss things relevant to living in or visiting Wellington.
But also I’d like some definition, if not specific rules then at least a kind of map of how things will be addressed. In part because not everyone who infringes means to do so, but also because some people can’t parse an oblique warning.
I’d like to see how we go. When an issue (or potential issue) arises, either start the discussion yourself, or report it with a description of your concern. If we find the approach isn’t working, we can adjust then. But before then I’d like to build up a team of moderators happy to use the discussion approach, and then as a team we can decide if more rules are necessary.
I think probably you are going to want to do a thread specifically for mod applications? I’d be willing to zap obvious spam scams and illegal things like csam on a when and as encountered basis but I don’t really have the time or the mental bandwidth to commit to full discussion based modding, especially where the discussions might be time sensitive. Also I think probably we’re both active in the same time zone while you’ll probably want at least one ideally two people who can prevent mods are sleeping scenarios.
Basically it sounds like an interpretation of common law. If the time and effort was available it would be a fascinating experiment to assign advocates and a random selection of users to make a ruling.
That does sounds interesting in theory, but in practice it may end up a bit like /r/AITA
I can help with moderation during the reddit blackout (and influx!) but don’t have time for much beyond that. I have extensive experience.
The last thing we need is experienced reddit moderators. Those megalomaniacs ruined the place. We’re all adults.
Plenty of kids on reddit will be looking for a home as well. They need protecting, both from and against others. :)
I think we’re all going to survive without your protection, friend. Hard to imagine, I know.
uh oh, don’t say that, you’ll only bring the mob upon yourself.
Kiwis are so strange once they hit the internet.
I think kiwis are strange in general. We live in a shame based culture, similar to Japan. Top priority is to be seen doing the “right thing”. Wrong think is unacceptable, even in your own private thoughts. No wonder why Reddit became the new TradeMe Forum, people love the downvote feature, because it promotes shame and silence. Other countries have more inquisitive and open-minded citizens.
You’re right. And there’s some weird streak, in general, about wanting to be supervised, wanting to be told what to do.
This happens when the spirit of a nation is crushed. For example, the same thing happened under communism.
I don’t want to derail the call for mods thread, so I’ll ask here. What is being defined as “other content illegal in nz”?
Is that taking a narrow view in line with classifications ratings, or is it ruling out discussion of illegal activities in general. NZTrees for example had people showing off their home grows, which is illegal, but wasn’t harming anyone.
I sort of passively mod on a few telegram groups (by owner request I never applied)
Just deleting shit that’s offensive or blatant spam.
Not wading in to conversations and throwing my opinion around.
There’s probably plenty showing up with experience, not necessarily reddit experience.
A good first step might just to have coverage yo delete stuff that needs deleting - with a very lax approach until a bit of a culture is embedded that sets the vibe of the place.
Yeah I think that’s a smart approach. Have some people that can remove obvious stuff. When we start to feel further action is needed, we can start to assemble a group to help with grey areas. I think when I get a chance I’ll create a post for expressions of interest to help, both for site-wide and community specific.
Don’t be afraid to invite people if based upon their observed behaviour you think they’ll be a good fit.
In my mind it sort of falls in the camp of if you want the job then that’s a potential sign you’re not best suited!
Totally! But it’s hard to judge in such a new community.
I think I’ll make a post explaining the approach I want to take, and ask for people willing to do this. Plus people willing to do basic cleansing of obvious stuff. Then make a list, start with a hand-selected subset, and make changes over time as needed.
I suspect the approach to address unfriendly content with discussion will probably put off a lot of power-hungry people :)
Please no.
A bank account to chuck donations would be nice, but not rules. They just set this up and there is no problem. Why would you want rules? You’d just end up with another Reddit. Do you need rules for a pub or an outdoor cafe table that has 10 people? The last thing a new website needs, is a debate around what rules should exist. Here, have a fake hall monitor badge and go back to reddit ;-)
I’m going to visit lemmy.ml now, to see what these weird political beliefs are. Must be pretty good if you didn’t elaborate :) maybe it involves area 51 and little grey men.
The ML in lemmy.ml (and also lemmygrad.ml) stands for Marxism–Leninism, of whom supporters of this political philosophy were the majority of Lemmy users until reddit started to migrate here a week ago. The founder and lead developer of Lemmy is a supporter of this philosophy, and many people are avoiding Lemmy because of it.
However, in my view it’s not a reason not to use Lemmy. Lemmy is Open Source, and uses a protocol common across other projects (such as Mastodon, a federated twitter-like platform - you can actually subscribe to Lemmy communities from Mastodon, though I believe the reverse doesn’t yet work). Because of this, many other developers with all sorts of political views have joined in development, and even if the core development team takes Lemmy in a direction that the community doesn’t want, the code is open source so a group of developers can fork (copy) the code and build it in the direction they want. And the two different versions can talk to each other because everything is running on the same protocol.
