Like any good online community, we need a clear content policy and rules for how we intend to enforce it. I’ve started us off with a few placeholders, but I’d prefer that the community weigh in.
What types of posts do you want to see in this community?
What types of posts do you NOT want to see in this community?
How harsh a moderation policy do you want to see, both for posts and comments?
Those are just some starter questions. Let me know what you think. Offer your suggestions for the community’s rules.
Given the volatile nature of the current political discourse, I’d suggest some basic safety features. In my opinion, the following should result in a ban / removal:
-
Doxing of any user
-
Posting of personal information
-
Calls to or threats of violence
-
Harassment and bullying
On a more personal note, I would love to see an active team providing additional context in comments and fact-checking to posted articles. This might help reduce some of the hyperbole and over the top commentary that turned political discussion on Reddit into a shouting match and echo chamber. Political discussions are best when they’re informed and honest, and that often takes a more hands-on approach from those who wish to curate and foster real conversation.
I’ve always wanted to do an active mod team that comments in real time, but it would take a few more people (although some AI auto mods could potentially be fact checkers… but that’s a whole other project. But, I think, a project worth considering after we do the basics.)
I hope this doesn’t come across as too “opportunist,” but I would really enjoy providing help with active fact-checking. Feel free to DM if you start looking for people to actively fill such a role.
-
I would say one of the biggest problems with r/politics was that anyone with a right-of-center take would be bullied and shouted down. The moderators were known to be heavily biased as well. If you allow content from across the political spectrum you should also try not to favor a certain side in moderation.
I recently subscribed to Ground News, a news aggregator site that rates news sources to left, leans left, center, leans right, and right.
It also rates their outlets to being partially accurate or highly accurate. GN also report and who owns the outlets, to give a window to biases by owners.My personal bias is to being factually accurate and honest, far more than the red/blue/green divides.
Sadly, discourse is such that being accurate is a right filter, leaving far fewer right outlets that can be trusted. For example, I have found that RT is more often correct than some of these outlets. Why? If RT propagandists throw in truthful news, they gain credibility, which buoys their credibility for when they break to full propaganda.
In a same vein, 60+ lawsuits were foisted in the last election over fake votes, with every single one thrown out by not having any evidence to support their accusations. But I still hear someone BSing those lies. But whadaboutism accusing Biden is still innuendo, without proof, and most importantly, does not excuse others to be free to break laws.
If Joe Biden took money from foreign interests, for himself, via Hunter, he would deserve prosecution, too.Finding any balance that to a so-called center is still half crazy, which is not good enough.
Fox News was sued and famously paid 3/4 of a billion dollars to pay damages for their lies, and more lawsuits are coming. Pulitzer prize winning magazines and newspapers deserve greater weight for truthfulness, while I would argue, Fox News and RT should be banned. They simply cannot be trusted.
