Asklemmy

43810 readers

1 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

On what basis do you think community moderators should be appointed? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by foo2@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Asking specifically because of the situation over at !worldnews. I see that recently, there has been an open call for moderators - https://lemmy.ml/post/5277453 - with the following requirements:

"You have to be on the lemmy.ml instance" and "Should have a history of activity here"

Are these the only requirements really? Because I think that moderators have quite some extraordinary power within a community, to the point that they can just censor whatever is unpleasant to their personal opinion, as if it were violating the community's rules when in fact it's not.

(For instance, see the modlog over at !worldnews https://lemmy.ml/modlog/14788 - where everyone expressing doubts about the justification to call "genocide" the Israeli reaction to the Hamas terror attacks is banned. I just think that moderators should show some sense of the actual power they possess and be careful to exhibit it. As in the case above, despite the atrocities of war, there's good reason not to speak of genocide - and even if that's not the moderators' opinion, expressing doubt about the justification to call it so does not violate the community's rules.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is probably no good answer or at least no definitive answer as of course instance admins can do whatever they want and clearly do. They usually have no founding principles or strict guidelines in which they adhere.

In my opinion I'd prefer people to enact moderation as little as possible. There should be a set of rules outlined for the community and the only time a moderator should take some moderation action is if one of those rules is broken. Of course there are always going to be things that are in grey areas, but I believe it makes more sense to have as few false positive actions taken as possible. If this results in some undesirable comments or posts to remain active then so be it. That is what the point system is for after all.

If the rules are determined to be inadequate then they should be updated and everyone should be informed so that everyone can make personal decision about whether to continue participation or not.

[–] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

Sounds like a good approach