Asking specifically because of the situation over at !worldnews. I see that recently, there has been an open call for moderators - https://lemmy.ml/post/5277453 - with the following requirements:
“You have to be on the lemmy.ml instance” and “Should have a history of activity here”
Are these the only requirements really? Because I think that moderators have quite some extraordinary power within a community, to the point that they can just censor whatever is unpleasant to their personal opinion, as if it were violating the community’s rules when in fact it’s not.
(For instance, see the modlog over at !worldnews https://lemmy.ml/modlog/14788 - where everyone expressing doubts about the justification to call “genocide” the Israeli reaction to the Hamas terror attacks is banned. I just think that moderators should show some sense of the actual power they possess and be careful to exhibit it. As in the case above, despite the atrocities of war, there’s good reason not to speak of genocide - and even if that’s not the moderators’ opinion, expressing doubt about the justification to call it so does not violate the community’s rules.)
Trial by combat.
Isn’t that already the only requirement for !worldnews?
Those seem like fine requirements. Asking for much more is impractical or impossible. I can’t imagine trying to screen mod candidates with personality tests, or judging their political opinions, etc. Since mods are people they will all have their biases and flaws. Fortunately, Lemmy offers total freedom of choice: you can choose to avoid communities with mods you dislike, and find (or create) communities you do like.
As an aside, Lemmy needs more mods in general. There are plenty of communities with absentee mods, or a single mod who can’t realistically monitor their community all the time. I worry that under-moderated communities are ripe for abuse.
To some extent sure, mods you don’t like are unavoidable. Guess I just want to stress the importance of some awareness that active moderation comes with responsibility, and that includes at least trying to be aware of your own biases, and questioning to what extent the community’s rules legitimize your actions.
When I find a community I might be interested in, I check their rules and if I’m ok with them - go for it. Just damn frustrating to run into mods themselves violating the community’s rules.
Can you link to some lemmy activity to consider abuse? Where do you see things going wrong without moderation?
My concern is hypothetical so far. Imagine a malicious troll starts posting garbage (CSAM, calls for violence, whatever) in a community with an absentee mod. The posts show up on everyone’s All feed. You can report the posts, but without an active community moderator the posts will stay up until the instance admin notices and takes action. Having more mods, and mods who are active users, increases the chance that garbage gets taken down in a timely manner.
Okay imagining is fun but unless you actually see the problem happening, what is it that you expect to change in the future to cause it to start happening where it’s not?
I remembered two current examples since my last post: !fediverse@kbin.social and !internet@kbin.social.
In both cases the lone mod is also the instance admin, who happens to be overworked and distracted at the moment. Both communities regularly get hit with spam pitching Amazon gift cards, prescription drugs, and political clickbait, which appears in my All feed. The posts stay up for days. If those communities had additional mods they could respond promptly and clean things up.
I notice in the case of kbin, all the spam has a negative score. Perhaps what lemmy needs is the ability to hide or de-emphasize content with a negative score.
The whole reddit standard is designed to suppress unwanted content simply through voting. That doesn’t seem to be happening here.
battle of wits. Who will choose the iocane powder? No really, a sense of the ridiculous is a must. Modding is not a holy crusade. It’s a bit like being a garbage man. It’s got to be done and if you don’t laugh, you’ll go bananapops. Source: many wretched jobs before I became the Dread Pirate Roberts.
There is probably no good answer or at least no definitive answer as of course instance admins can do whatever they want and clearly do. They usually have no founding principles or strict guidelines in which they adhere.
In my opinion I’d prefer people to enact moderation as little as possible. There should be a set of rules outlined for the community and the only time a moderator should take some moderation action is if one of those rules is broken. Of course there are always going to be things that are in grey areas, but I believe it makes more sense to have as few false positive actions taken as possible. If this results in some undesirable comments or posts to remain active then so be it. That is what the point system is for after all.
If the rules are determined to be inadequate then they should be updated and everyone should be informed so that everyone can make personal decision about whether to continue participation or not.
Sounds like a good approach
Not just the Israel-Hamas war, when you criticize the CCP in that community you get banned for “orientalism”. That modlog is hilariously full of “bothsidesing” and “orientalism”, but that’s a problem with the whole instance which is leaning towards tankism.
Hope you won’t get banned for pointing that out ha ha
deleted by creator
Public dance contest.
Ok, but there should be swords. Every one in the dance off gets a sword.
You’re looking at this from a very reddit-like perspective.
If you don’t like the way a community is moderated, move to another.
Honestly the behavior you mention sounds like exactly what a mod on worldnews@lemmy.ml would be expected to do.
