Snapshot gauging. How do you feel about the Shit Reactionaries Say community at this moment?
We ask because almost 2 years ago, we merged all "Shit X Say" communities into two: Reactionaries and Ultras.
We also, by popular demand back then, made the communities NSFW so that they would be easy to avoid for people who didn't want to see this type of content.
Today, we are asking how you feel about this community (And SUS as well, though it's much less popular than SRS). This will potentially shape further policy related to these two communities.
It's a pretty open-ended question so don't hesitate to be thorough.
I propose a rule prohibiting posts about random non-public figures (e.g. typical YouTube commenters)
I don't want another c/gossip and c/slop seperation in Lemmygrad but okay?
Yo, same, please don't fuck this space up
I'd like to hear your reasoning.
pointing out that the average Western social media user is a liberal with liberal takes typically leads to either no engagement or a few comments saying "wow, this sure is a bad argument", and it obscures other posts in this community
Hard disagree here, this would kill the community and the posts would start appearing in shitposting or somewhere else.
I hate to do the whole liberal "tax break for those who open and operate a business in a minority community for 3 years" thing but could we perhaps try and achieve similar with moderation with some wiggle-room?
That is allow people to vent on rare occasion when they need to about some spectacularly bad nobody take but maybe make a rule that any given user can only make such posts once in a blue moon or some more defined period like 3 months.
Anyone who violates it gets a temp ban from the community. As I see it the issue is probably mostly a few power-posters who seek out and serve up this kind of material in large quantities rather than a huge stream of many users doing this. This would at least encourage serving up only the most choice bits rather than everything and make it more interesting. Would be up to the mods if they feel like doing that kind of work though.
Though I do think it would be wise to have a low floor for this. That is allow a lot of content that is from "personalities" who aren't say a US senator or a major company CEO but are someone with some renown and clout online as opposed to a 2 follower no profile picture Twitter account that posted something that got all of two likes.
I also think lemmy drama can be a bit more relevant and topical here even when done by non-public figures. e.g. I don't mind seeing (and in fact appreciate being kept informed about) the latest admin shit-show from .world where they're banning people for saying jury nullification or some other ridiculous boot-licking thing as I think that helps passerby not of our instance think a bit more about us in a positive light and them in a worse light. So clarification that say lemmy admin actions/announcements are relevant for posting would be great.
I think before implementing such a change an analysis SHOULD be done which looks at posts say through the last 3-6 months, whatever can be stomached and categorizes them quickly. That is check before implementing that a rule like this wouldn't remove 80% of the content as my lemmygrad feed hardly has a problem with too many posts in a day.
"prohibiting" was probably too strong a word -- I don't mind if those kinds of posts pop up every now and then, particularly if they're not generic, but I don't think they should be the majority
yeah, I count the former as public figures; my only real issue is that the community is often flooded with the latter