-16
The fact you can't tell anyone to go f themselves online anymore without getting banned is absurd and sad
(self.casualconversation)
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
-16 points (36.7% liked)
Casual Conversation
3001 readers
348 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a mystery. Abuse upsets people, and upset people leave businesses where they get upset. And those businesses ban the abusers?
What. A. Shock.
Let's pretend this isn't online space and is, instead, say, the local deli. People go there to get food and see that a fellow customer likes to abuse people. The staff of the deli do nothing about it. So now people stop going to that deli and go somewhere else. (Note: not just the people being abused, but people who witness the abuse going unchallenged by the owner.)
So let's go over the decision-making process:
Which is the approach that doesn't kill the business?
Now jack up the paint job, insert an online space, lower the paint job. Do you think the calculus is any different?
And in case you think people don't leave because of this kind of abuse, I dropped Twitter (loooooooooooooooong before Apartheid Manchild was its owner!) despite only rarely being the recipient of abuse. It was the culture of abuse that was everywhere, in practically every thread, that made me decide Twitter was a festering shitpile. (Again, even before the Manchild took it over.) Sure the abusers were a minority, but they were basically in any thread that was in any way public. And that just wasn't the vibe I was interested in.