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.

  • Sightline@lemmy.ml
    ·
    3 years ago

    On the other hand, in general (by which I mean that I haven’t seen this crop up in Lemmy but I wouldn’t like to see) I’d hate to see anti-vax, flat-earth, or otherwise blatant fake science showing up.

    You should bet on that happening. I created /c/conspiracy because Reddit's /r/conspiracy is effectively /r/The_Donald. These people do not care about your facts, at all whatsoever. If anything they'll want their "facts" to be the only facts you ever encounter. Go there (/r/conspiracy) and look around if you do not believe me. A different approach needs to be taken. I was there when Voat was first created, before it turned to shit. Something creative needs to happen here, or IMO this place will turn to shit too.

    RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION

    VOLUME 2: RUSSIA'S USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA:

    Analysis of the behavior of the IRA-associated social media accounts makes dear that while the Russian information warfare campaign exploited the context of the election and election-related issues in 2016, the preponderance of the operational focus, as reflected repeatedly in content, account names, and audiences targeted, was on sociapy divisive issues-such as race, immigration, and Second Amendment rights-in an attempt to pit Americans against one another and against their government. The Committee found that IRA influence operatives consistently used hot-button, societal divisions in the United States as fodder for the content they published through social media in order to stoke anger, provoke outrage and protest, push Americans further away from one another, and foment distrust in government institutions. The divisive 2016 U.S. presidential election was just an additional feature of a much more expansive,, target-rich landscape of potential ideological and societal sensitivities.

    A much easier approch would be to let downvotes and upvotes decide the fate of each post.

    That's one of the worst ideas I can think of right now. If anything upvotes/downvotes should be disabled for a temporarily amount of time.