so if you haven’t come across it, see here , here , here and here .

in short, one side says sources are pro-imperialist, the other side believes they’re legitimate sources. then there is one user thinking we have been targeted by troll farms, one accusing others of being conspiracy theorists and stuff like that. it’s one of the most unproductive arguements I’ve seen on Lemmy, something that looks like one those downvoted-to-oblivian threads on reddit. it’s just a mess.

I think we can do a few things to prevent such pointless fights in the future:

  1. my favoriate response would be creating a community of fact-checker Lemmurs. it’ll function similar to a wikipedia talk page, anyone can request a trial for an article shared on c/worldnews , then they will present evidence and sources to challenge the article, while the other side attempts to do the same. personal attacks, accusing of being a troll, asking for a call on jitsi to debate face to face (like seriously?!?!) will be forbidden. both sides will debate untill they reach an agreement. trying to go off-topic, bad faith arguements etc will be forbidden as well.

each time we reach a conclusion, a positive or negative point will be assigned to news source and to the person who posted it. best contributers who show the least bias will get a point as well. overtime it will help us to see if a source is really good or not.

  1. a much easier approch would be to let downvotes and upvotes decide the fate of each post. I understand that this is the whole point of lemmy and similar platforms, but right now we have the problem of each side using downvotes and upvotes like it’s a battle. posts about internet censoreship and tiny pigs are being downvoted because the person who posts them trusts the Guardian and other news outlets.

  2. we can limit the number of posts on c/worldnews to minimize the amount of personal attacks and arguements.

so what do you think? I personally think as more users come to lemmy, we’ll be dealling with more diverse opinions, and people might just engage in behaviors that harms the platform and benefits no one. this will be a real problem considering that Lemmy leans far-left. in my opinion having a fact-checking community will be neccessary if we don’t want fact-based communities turn into battlefields.

ps: am I going too far and overreacting? to be honest I don’t know xD I just think there’s no chance for productive political arguements if we can’t agree on the facts, and i see no point in what’s happening on c/worldnews right now.

  • BrownJenkin
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    We could have a !liberalnews ghetto where non-communist news sources are allowed to be shared freely.

    • soferman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      It would be basicly a crosspost group, but I wouldn’t be against it. :)

      Although I think having a big news group that everyone uses is most beneficial for lemmy and makes such a group more usefull.

      • BrownJenkin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        If you know that I am wrong, could you give counter examples?

        In my experience, Internet “communities” of faceless nobodies are a kind of ratchet to echo chambers.

        There is a drift to homogeneity no matter what you do. These are not places for pluralism or diversity.

        The Lemmy algorithms are not different from those of Reddit, so… but you can try, and you evidently do, so… good luck anyways.