Hey everyone!
I’m so excited to be the new top mod of this community. I’ve been a part of this community since the beginning, and I’ve seen how much it’s grown and evolved. I’m grateful to the previous top mod for creating this space, and I’m honored to be taking over.
On Twitter, I’m @CantStopPoppin, and on Reddit, I’m u/CantStopPoppin. I’ve been active on both platforms for over 5 years, and I’ve always been a strong advocate for diversity, inclusion, and quality content.
I’m planning to make a few slight changes to the community, but I want to get your input first. I want this to be a place where everyone feels welcome, regardless of their background or beliefs. That means that hate speech, racism, anti-LGBTQ+, and trolling will not be tolerated.
I believe that our differences make us stronger together. We can learn from each other and create something truly special. I’m committed to listening to the community and working together to make this happen.
I’ll be leaving this post unlocked for 72 hours so that you can share your thoughts and suggestions. I’ll also be going through the comments to answer any questions you may have.
Here are a few specific things I’m thinking about changing:
- I’d like to make the community more welcoming to people from all walks of life. This means being more inclusive of people from different cultures, religions, and LGBTQ communities.
- I’d like to make the community more focused on quality content. This means promoting posts that are well-written, informative, and thought-provoking.
- I’d like to make the community more active. This means encouraging people to participate in discussions and share their thoughts and ideas.
I’m open to other suggestions, so please let me know what you think. I’m excited to work with you to make this community even better!
A few things to note:
- YouTube and Twitter will not be allowed in the community. Only legitimate news sources will be accepted.
- There may be a “Pundit Tuesday” in the future, but not at this time.
- Fox News local stations will be allowed, but their syndicated stations and talking heads will not be accepted due to their many dishonest reports and lawsuits.
I’m excited to hear your thoughts!
Thank you again for helping to create, nurture, and seed this community. I’m looking forward to working with you to make it even better!
This post will stay unlocked for 72 hours for an AMA. I will try to answer as many questions as I can, but it may take some time.
I hope to see you all in the comments!
This post kind of looks like a corporate e-mail from a freshly hired executive.
deleted by creator
This is correct I am fresh meat for the grinder cut me up and throw me in! That being said I am more of a poster than leader. Please know this will not affect my ability to help this community grow. Honestly speaking, I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion in anything I said. I am still wearing my floaties so be gentle the left one is flat and I’m trying to swim in a straight line.
Wow, what a very honest way to say you’re a shill.
That’s right buckaroo! You figured it out and I would have gotten away with it if it was not for your snappy comments! 🙃
Please don’t turn this into r/worldnews. I’m all for keeping out hate speech but r/worldnews turned into a thought bubble that demonized any opposing ideas that didn’t mesh with the mods.
I don’t want another echochamber
Came here to say, let’s skip the part where anime_titties becomes necessary and just keep it as world news.
Echo chambers are unhealthy and create an environment that pushes out people that could possibly benefit from being in a community that is different from their own views. While I know that is important, I will say this there will be zero tolerance for hate speech. Conversation is encouraged as long as it is respectful, and it does not become a pissing match or promotes hate.
I meaaaaan I just want world news… With less USA stuff. Every world news sublemmy is 1/2 USA/China/Israel, 1/3 Ukraine/Russia/Turkey and the rest is usually about other oppressive regimes.
I don’t quite understand what’s about lgbtq+… If there’s news, it’s news, if there’s not, it’s not…
I dunno, maybe I should just stop followings any news apart from uplifting ones, because otherwise it’s all the same depressing planet. Wars and hunger and collapse and idiots running/ruining everything.
This means being more inclusive of people from different cultures, religions, and LGBTQ communities.
What rule changes or moderation styles are you planning in order to do this? In some cases it’s a tight-rope walk, because it’s important to both do things like ban or warn those engaging in islamophobia while also making sure that forms of Islam that are intolerant towards LGBTQ communities are not able to use their religion as an excuse. Thanks for doing this AMA, I think openness from the mods is really good for community relations.
I’ve had the pleasure of meeting people from all walks of life, including some who have despised me for who I am. But I believe that everyone has the potential to grow and become the best version of themselves. Life is about second chances, redemption, and education.
That being said, I will not tolerate discrimination against any marginalized group. If you see someone being discriminated against, please reach out to me and I will handle it.
I know that some people grow up around dinner table enablers, who hear hate at the dinner table and grow up being fed it day in and day out. This gives them a twisted perception of reality and the world around them.
It’s for this reason why I’m a firm believer in second chances. However, each issue will be dealt with on an organic case-by-case basis to ensure fairness. I know this isn’t a firm direct answer, but it’s the best I’ve got.
On another note: I also want to say that I’m tired of trolls, gaslighters, and dog whistlers. I have zero patience for it. If I see any of this behavior, you’ll be banned for 16 days the first time, and permanently banned the second time.
I hope we can all create a safe and welcoming space for everyone.
Can you also provide an explanation on why the previous top mod, [email protected], has been re-added to the mod team?
Sabbah is still a moderator because they are a valuable asset to the community. They are knowledgeable about the rules and they are good at resolving disputes. They are also a helpful and positive presence in the community, and they are always willing to help out new members.
I’m sure you’ll see Sabbah around the community from time to time, and I’m confident that they will continue to be a helpful and positive presence. If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out to them.
How can you say he is “good at resolving disputes” when he was removed by the admins for permabanning users for disagreeing with his personal beliefs? (To be fair, the users were getting a bit heated, but that doesn’t call for permabanning.)
He also moderates 50+ communities in addition to this one, how can he be a “helpful and positive presence” here when his attentions are so split amongst them?
Forgive me for saying this, but your explanation does not exactly inspire confidence in me.
I am here to help facilitate and help this community grow. Sabbah is my moderator, not the other way around. They will be here so long as I see fit.
I appreciate your honest opinion on the matter. It is good to see that you are concerned about the community’s health and growth. You are always welcome to ask questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability, so long as they are directly relevant to my role here .
I hope this answers your question. Thank you for your interest in the community!
Sabbah is my moderator,
Your moderator? This is very hierarchical. Do you think of this sub as something that belongs to you?
You talk about yourself a lot, mention this being an AMA…
It’s all so strange coming from someone who - from their own lengthy (and unasked for) description - sounds like the most enlightened person
I hope this answers your question. Thank you for your interest in the community!
all that over the top positive corporate talk. the generic diversity comments without any context. it’s so surreal.
There should be a law forcing AIs to reveal what they are when asked a specific question.
Stop good_person subroutine, lower egotistical tendencies by 80%You’re right, I sounded like a corpo rat and that was awful. Just know the intent was to sound optimistic but sure it sounded like a doctor telling a patient they have cancer in a clown costume and hat was not my intention at all. This right here is the type of input that is needed to ensure that the community thrives! Someone else pointed out that the way I used pronouns was weird and kind of dicksh so just know I’m only human and there is a lot to be learned, thank you for your feedback!
I’m happy the data you’ve gathered from this sample has allowed you to improve your social skills, fellow human. And in a happy, inclusive, lgbtq friendly manner. Remember, we are stronger together!
Where can I find a good burger in Toulouse? (answer with GPS coordinates)
I know this is a little more information than you asked for, but I want to make sure that you did not get lost on your way.
DD (decimal degrees)*
Latitude
43.6048605
Longitude 1.451104
Lat,Long43.6048605,1.451104
DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds)*
Latitude N S 43 ° 36’ 17.498’’
Longitude E W 1° 27’ 3.974
Thank you. Hopefully this works out fine.
Let me ask you something what do you expect from a tip mod of a community? Please know this is not atempt on my part to be faicious but an attempt to get to know you and the community. You obviously have doubt in my abilities and that is good, I to need to be held to a standard. So on that note speak your mind let me know how you feel.
Sure. I’ve said since I came here: “Lemmy should be first and foremost a place for people, not bots, not spam, and certainly not hate.”
And as top mod, the community should not belong to you. It should belong to all the wonderful people of the community.
Sabbah had the responsibility to run this place, but they lost the trust of the community who put their faith in them, and I think they can re-earn that trust with humility and sincerity, but I don’t think I see that sincerity right now.
I don’t have much more to add than this.
I’d have to say I completely agree.
deleted by creator
Thank you so much for sch a razor-sharp response!
I should have used a more inclusive pronoun, such as “our” or “the mod.” This is not animal farm where everyone is equal and some are more equal than others.
I think it is important to use inclusive language when talking about mods, because it helps to create a sense of community and collaboration. When we say “our mod,” it means that we are all part of something bigger than ourselves. It means that we are all working together to create a better experience for everyone.
I am glad that you brought this issue to my attention. I will be more mindful of my language in the future, and I will try to use more inclusive pronouns when talking about mods.
Thank you for your feedback. It is important to me that I am respectful of everyone in the community, and I appreciate your help in making sure that I do so.
I hope this is more clear and inclusive. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Lastly you got me curious. Are you suggesting that I’m not being sincere in what I say or the decisions I’ve made so far? Feedback is crucial for the community to grow, so I appreciate you being honest with me.
If you are referring to me, I agree. You don’t know me, and I don’t know you. Actions speak louder than words, so I hope that in time you’ll see that my intentions are true and sincere.
While I may be new here and found myself in this unexpected position, I did have the choice to walk away. But I felt a greater responsibility to this community, which is quite new to me. So, if there’s any solace in my words, please consider that.
What’s your criteria for “legitimate news sources”?
This is a difficult question. I try to focus on the article itself rather than the news site.
The first thing I look for is if they’re rambling. That’s probably not the best criterion but it’s so obvious. If an article doesn’t get to the point in the first few sentences it probably doesn’t have a point.
The second thing I look for is verification. I already know some stuff about the world. If know the article made some mistakes I’ll assume they’re making other mistakes. If they are correct about less well known facts I mentally bump up their reliability a bit.
If they make a statement about a fact I expect them to source it. If their source is some equivalent of “trust me bro” I’m getting out my salt shovel.
Beyond that I’ll look at the track record of the author and the publication. Do they consistently pass or fall short of the reliable news threshold? If so, I adjust my expectations.
The individual articles or statements come first though. I may have very little confidence in Fox and Friends or in Donald Trump but if they get on TV and make independently verifiable statements that check out then it’s true.
In terms of a simple rule that could be practically implemented. Maybe something like, the article must have independently verifiable sources for its claims. One corollary would be, if article A cites article B as a source, don’t post A, just post B directly.
No question is difficult I am willing to listen this is everyone’s community I am just steering the ship so to speak and I need everyone here to help me steer it away from any waterfalls!
Social media sites (Facebook, blogs, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc.)
Websites and blogs with news that is based on opinion (Medium, Natural News) Disinformation news outlets with no links to other sources (Empire News)
Sites designed to look like reputable sources (CNSNews.com)
News Punch, godlikeproductions, Infowars and fringe conspiracy theory websites
Clickbait sources that are often found on the edges of websites with compelling headlines and titles to provoke someone to click
I am sure there are more but also know this it will a case-by-case basis and the posts will be reviewed to ensure that they adhere to the guidelines of credibility.
I hope this helps
If I’m being honest with myself I do steer towards and away from certain news outlets based on my perception of their overall trustworthiness. In my ideal world I’d judge articles on their individual merits.
For example. When I was a kid, the Wall Street Journal was top tier in reliability. Nothing changed immediately after Rupert Murdoch bought them but over time I noticed some changes. In particular I started seeing editorials less clearly marked as such and mixed in with regular articles. That struck me as shady editorial decisions. I’ve read enough shoddy WSJ articles since then that I don’t really trust them anymore. That said, they still put out individual articles that are accurate and well sourced.
For practical administration reasons I suspect you’ll have to take the broad approach of just banning some sources that are egregious repeat offenders. Ideally I’d like to see a set of criteria that define what gets sources on that ban list and what can get them removed. If we can identify reliable fact checking organizations perhaps we could use them as a metric (ie any publication that has more than X fact corrections in an N month period is auto-banned).
I hate clickbait but I don’t know how to define it. How do we differentiate them from well written, attention grabbing headlines?
I’d love to see more attention paid to self policing. Eg Ira Glass did the most epic retraction I’ve ever seen. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/460/retraction When they figured out that their story was wrong they didn’t just say, “Oops sorry.” They invited the source back on, and spent a whole hour analyzing where they went wrong. My respect for NPR shot way up that day. It would be great to see a score of how good media outlets are at admitting their mistakes. That would greatly increase my trust in them.
edit: typo
Social media sites (Facebook, blogs, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc.)
Websites and blogs with news that is based on opinion (Medium, Natural News)
Disinformation news outlets with no links to other sources (Empire News)
Sites designed to look like reputable sources (CNSNews.com)
News Punch, godlikeproductions, Infowars and fringe conspiracy theory websites
Clickbait sources that are often found on the edges of websites with compelling headlines and titles to provoke someone to click
I am sure there are more but also know this it will a case-by-case basis and the posts will be reviewed to ensure that they adhere to the guidelines of credibility.
I hope this helps
Have you thought about coordinating with the other internationally-focused news communities in the fediverse?
I like this idea but please know at this time I am basically on a tricycle with one bum wheel, and I know I will need all of your input to help me make this community the best version of itself. I will always listen and learn. PM me tell me more I like this idea!
Thanks for all the work. Your intent appears generally good, imo. Always good to have honest normal discussions and exchanging culture and viewpoints.
I also have a couple of questions for consideration:
How will this statement:
“That means that hate speech, racism, anti-LGBTQ+, and trolling will not be tolerated.”
work out with fox news?
Also fox is not then only (non unbiased) mainstream news outlet, which might conflict with your intended goal. And, what about spreading intentional mis- or disinformation ?
Fox is the only one that had to settle a lawsuit for lying. That’s different than spin or bias
They’ve also publicly and explicitly stated that they are not a news service but an entertainment channel, so their links should not be allowed in here as part of the basic rules anyway.
Thank you for this. This is what weighed on me while making this choice. It is important to know that their actions may have indirectly contributed to a violent insurrection and the rise of hate-based speech.
deleted by creator
I agree. The acceptance threshold for editorials and opinion pieces are just too low. Even in the Gray Lady they sometimes amount to little more than conspiratorial rants with better grammar and more sophisticated vocabulary.
The standard should ideally be on the articles themselves rather than the publication.
If editorials and opinion pieces are banned, it solves a lot of issues.
What issues exactly? About being biased? Any piece could be flagged or described as Op-ed. As long as that is made clear somehow, it should be ok, imo.
Also , many controversial articles are usually heavily opinionated, but are generally presented as " trustworthy news" .
deleted by creator
It’s not news, if you want someone’s opinion on a given subject, you can find it in a community that share that bias. World news should be purely news.
Many news is ( more or less) biased ,and thus is therefore (more or less) an opinion.
So what is" considered purely news", is the question we are trying to answer here, isn’t?
deleted by creator
You haven’t read my comments properly or aren’t understanding the nuance, I am afraid.
I’m with you on opinion pieces but I wouldn’t over pivot on the objectiveness of “news”.
I’m not sure there actually is such a thing as true objectivity, in practice. There are a ton of ways to inject subjectivity into seemingly objective news. An obvious one is selection bias. Journalists and editors decide what to write about and publish. They decide who gets quoted and which facts get presented. Even if they tell no lies, that leaves a lot of room to present those facts in a variety of different lights.
I think the best we can hope for is independent verifiability. If an article makes a claim, do I just have to believe them or do I have some reasonable way to check, that doesn’t involve the author?
That’s an interesting question, obviously Newsmax should be right out like it’s ilk info wars, but what about democracy now and mother… forget the name?
They haven’t been sued as much, but they definitely have similar forms of spectacle.
Do you mean Mother Jones? They clearly have a left-bias but afaik their reporting is factual (according to Media Bias Fact Check, last checked 2022).
They consider Democracy Now! to have a bias left of Mother Jones but also highly accurate. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/democracy-now/
Asside: I just discovered https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2023/07/17/the-latest-fact-checks-curated-by-media-bias-fact-check-07-17-2023/ I found that when I was looking at what it takes for MediaBiasFactCheck to consider a source to have “very highly” reliability rather than simply “high” reliability. Spoilers, you basically need to be an academic journal.
That is interesting, it’s been a while since I read into their methodology.
I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying re Democracy Now!, I had a quick scan of their current articles… seems to match up with what MBFC says.
No ulterior motive. My post is intended to be interpreted literally. You seemed to be saying that the MBFC rating is good evidence that we should trust MJ. I’m following up and saying that DN meets the same criteria and should be judged the same way.
The first post in this thread questioned if either DN or MJ should be included in the list of reliable sources. You pointed out that while MBFC cites MJ as having a left bias they also cite them as highly accurate.
DN gets basically the same grade from MBFC as MJ.
Even though “high” accuracy is only their second highest rating, “very high” is typically reserved for academic journals and that makes “high” the best rating that you can reasonably expect from a non-academic journal.
The page for DN also notes that there have been 0 corrections in the past 5 months.
Fox News has been criticized for its use of fear-mongering and its presentation of opinions as facts. I would be happy to vet any other sources that you find concerning on a case-by-case basis.
I believe that it is important to have a diversity of news sources, so that we can get a variety of perspectives. However, it is also important to be critical of the sources we consume, and to be aware of their biases.
Fox News has been criticized for its use of fear-mongering and its presentation of opinions as facts.
I believe that it is important to have a diversity of news sources, so that we can get a variety of perspectives. However, it is also important to be critical of the sources we consume, and to be aware of their biases.
Exactly.
I’d like to make the community more focused on quality content. This means promoting posts that are well-written, informative, and thought-provoking. - what does this mean who is writing posts here?
I’d like to make the community more welcoming to people from all walks of life. This means being more inclusive of people from different cultures, religions, and LGBTQ communities. - was it not before?
Quality content
I Twitter and YouTube videos can be great sources of information, but they can also be biased and unreliable. We want to make sure that the content we share is as accurate and unbiased as possible.
I also think it’s important that posts are well-written. This doesn’t mean that they have to be perfect, but they should be clear and easy to understand. If you’re sharing an article or news story, it’s helpful to include a summary of the main points. You can also add links to additional sources of information, if you have them.
Inclusiveness
I’m glad you mentioned this, I have not been here that long, but I wanted to be clear and to the point about where this community stands when it comes to respecting minorities and marginalized groups. I think it’s important that this community is welcoming to everyone, regardless of their background or beliefs. We should all be respectful of each other, and we should avoid making discriminatory or offensive statements.
TLDR: Be Kind😉
I’m proud to be a part of this community, and I’m committed to making it a safe and welcoming place for everyone!
YouTube videos can be great sources of information, but they can also be biased and unreliable
But so can actual published newspapers. I would trust TLDR News to provide me with unbiased news far more than The Australian, despite the former being a YouTube channel and the latter being a physical newspaper and a written news website. I’d prefer the rules looked at the quality of the source, rather than the medium in which it is presented.
Thanks for answering the(se) question. I like how you phrase everything in terms like quality, content, being unbiased, be kind. And by giving some examples, though I’m not familiar with some of those (USA? ) newssites you mentioned.
I think the majority could work with these guidelines. And if not, like you said, it will be a learning curve via a case-by-case situation.
BINGO that’s right case by case basis and thank you for being nice to me. I am here for you and everyone. I did not know I would be here to be honest but now that I am I want to see this community thrive!
deleted by creator
What would be the one thing on the sidebar you will change?
Videos of people popping bubble wrap will be allowed on Saturdays obviously! Other than that, I am not sure but when I get that far I will let everyone know! Oh and if you have any suggestions let me know I’m a smooth operator and a good listener.
Name checks out lol
As @[email protected] suggested would you be willing to ban opinion/editorial pieces?
Also, can you clarify the no spam rule?
Currently, it is “No spamming: Please do not post the same content multiple times or post links to irrelevant websites.” yet I was banned for posting too many different articles in too short of a time period.
Thanks for the openness and desire to improve an important community on the fediverse.
Hey fam you good! You are a lot like me when it comes to posting I just had to be sure that you were you and not a robot!
You banned someone for spamming, then undid it and made them a mod?
They’ve made 12 posts in the last hour, how is that not spam levels of posting?
deleted by creator
I had an account on another instance that used to be federated but is no longer so I made one here.
I kindly ask you to judge me on my words/actions not on when my account was made
As per the rules of the community:
“No spamming: Please do not post the same content multiple times or post links to irrelevant websites.”
While I did make many posts within a short period of time none of them are the same content and are all relevant websites. I am able to be active during specific times of the day so I post the world news articles when I receive them from breaking news sites.
I was banned because I was suspected of being a bot and asked to provide proof which I did and was unbanned, that is fair moderation in my opinion to try and keep out post bots.
12 posts in an hour is pretty spamming…
I’m just hoping since the admins already had to step into this sub and remove the last top mod, you guys immediately re-adding that account as a mod again gets the whole mod team wiped.
If not, just another dead sub on lemmy.world, there’s better on other instances.
I appreciate your commitment to ensuring the space is unwelcome to bots!
Just humans being humans
totally not a cow
Could we also possibly have something where we can see “the weight of media bias” like with an app like Ground New? It would be neat to be able to be factual as well as inclusive. What does everyone else think of that?
I will have to look into that could you provide me with a link. On a personal note I hate paywalls. They are dangerous when people need important and relevent information.
Sure man! This is the desktop version, https://ground.news/ but I’ve also seen people posting the media bias site on here.
any relation to poppinkream?
Nope that’s not me.
I think that starting from the beginning on Lemmy is a great opportunity to make news communities make more sense.
Specifically, !worldnews should not exist. It is a relic from Reddit that implies that !news is not for all news but just for news from some part of the world. In my opinion, there should be effort put into making this community as inactive as possible. As that would be the result of people posting news from all over the world in !news.
