Hi all, thanks for all the feedback today. I have put together this code of conduct as a starting point. We can of course modify it over time as needs change, but it would be good to hear if this is on point based on the discussion, or if it needs more work.
Based on suggestions in the feedback thread, I’m proposing this does not go in the sidebar itself. Instead, we keep the current rule “Don’t be a dick”, and link to this code of conduct. A simple, single rule; more clarity for those that need it.
Please let me know what you think:
Welcome to the Lemmy.nz! We are dedicated to fostering a positive and inclusive environment for all members. To ensure a respectful and enjoyable experience, we require that you adhere to the following code of conduct:
- Don’t be a dick: Treat all members with respect and kindness. Avoid personal attacks, harassment, discrimination, hate speech, or any form of abusive behavior. No promotion or encouragement of suicide, self-harm, or violence against others.
- Good faith participants only: No trolls, no nazis, no tankies.
- Respect Privacy: Do not share personal or confidential information about others (doxing).
- No Spamming or Advertising: Avoid excessive posting of the same content or advertisements.
- No disinformation: Posting of harmful disinformation is not allowed.
- Report Inappropriate Behaviour: If you witness any violations of the code of conduct or encounter any other issues, report them to the community moderators or administrators. Help us maintain a safe and welcoming environment for all.
Failure to comply with this code of conduct may result in temporary or permanent ban, as determined by the moderators or administrators.
This code of conduct was developed in conjunction with the community. If you need more context to understand what the community deems to be acceptable, please see this thread.
Remember that the code of conduct is in place to ensure the best possible experience for all members. By participating in our community, you agree to abide by these guidelines.
Thank you for being a part of the Lemmy.nz community and for helping us create a vibrant and inclusive space for discussion!
Edit: I’ll now create a formal post for this.
The only one I’m uncomfortable with is #5. This implies there is always truth and a ‘right’ answer which can stymie debate. Facts evolve as understanding of the world evolves and deepens. Under #5 we would have banned Copernicus …
So we have significant evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism, COVID jabs don’t have microchips, climate change is human caused, etc. How would you phrase it to say that we don’t allow debate on these things? Remembering that these are based on much more rigorous evidence than the prevailing view in Copernicus’s time.
Let downvotes to oblivion to do their thing.
My understanding is that allowing disinformation to proliferate, even downvoted to oblivion, is still a chance to hook someone in to that thinking if they already see themselves as marginalised.
While pushing back, or removing will not work to reprogram true believers it will protect those vulnerable to misinformation
Yes I remember reading in the past that you shouldn’t even joke about these things, as giving people more exposure to the idea means that for those that are vulnerable (which is not necessarily who you might think!), more exposure can mean they are a step closer to believing.
My personal view is that anti-vax, climate change denial, and similar content should be removed on sight.
Yeah worry less about being platonic ideal of fair and more about actual harm - there’s always a slippery slope argument to be made but when the hypothetical is given more weight than the actual stupid things happen.
What do you consider as anti-vax then? There is a whole spectrum from “vaccines causes autism” to “covid vaccines are safe and efficient”, where both of these extremes are blatant misinformation.
I am staunchly against vaccine mandates. Is that a viewpoint that is OK to argue for? I do not think the current set of covid vaccines are either safe or efficient. Is that a view I am allowed to express?
As discussed over chat, we will try to avoid these discussions at all. Even if most people participate in good faith, in a public forum discussing such controversial topics you will get bad-faith participants, and we simply don’t have the moderation power to keep this on track.
I think it’s kinda gonna depend on what you’re arguing really. And how.
You can disagree because you think the legal or philosophical underpinnings of vax mandates are unsound and that’s not being anti-vaxx. That’s being anti-mandate.
But if all your anti-mandate rhetoric comes from Fox News and you’re citing the virus is a hoax as a reason not to mandate, that’s probably not going to go well. Especially amongst those of us who have firsthand seen it killing people we know.
So is this staunchness restricted to vaccines within a certain development timeframe and if so where does your staunchness border lie? Or are you just ideologically pro-polio?
Please just don’t. Any discussion is not going to convince anyone on either side. It’s a moderation disaster waiting to happen, and a waste of everyone’s time.
The problem is I’m pretty sure there’s nothing built yet to hide or collapse low karma posts or to restrict low karma users. Downvote troll paradise.
Works fine until the brigading starts
Keyword there is “harmful”. People are allowed to be wrong about stuff, until the things they say might directly harm another person or group (by scaring them away from effective healthcare, or giving them dodgy legal advice, as examples).
Geocentrists can post to their hearts content I reckon.
Psychologically misinformation is thought to be an attraction to being part of an in group, and less harmful permeations are a sort of gateway drug to the more batshit harmful stuff.
That heliocentric universe proposal world justify a righteous banning. I wouldn’t let him in.