Skip Navigation
Uplifting News @lemmy.world
Aatube @lemmy.world
Meta

Negativity in Comments

Recently, we merry mods have been noticing many-a-comments being in the report queue for perceived negativity (the aim of the community being to provide "a break from the incessant negativity and rage"). What actions should we do about these, if any? Do we need a newsome another-rule for this?

Here's what I think: Some skepticism and scrutiny is always quite needed knowledge—especially against information that's actually untrue/misleading—and any bars I can think of for removing negative comments would apply to reasonable skepticism as well. Thus, the mod team is asking y'all to drop some bars!

Edit

32 comments

  • I agree with removing all of those comments. Comments that point out factual inaccuracies should be allowed, but comments that are some variety of This Is Bad, Actually or We Should Be Talking About X Instead should not. As a general rule, comments should only be made if a reasonable, non-radicalized person would consider them uplifting. Posts that are not uplifting should be downvoted and posters who primarily post non-uplifting stuff should be warned and eventually banned.

  • I don't frequent this community, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, but I'm not seeing many bars/criteria which is what is being requested so I'll throw in my two cents.

    \1. If it is reasonable context or updates the average person would want/need, then it should be allowed.

    Examples:

    "It's great the old lady recovered from her fall down the stairs, but unfortunately, a few hours after this article, she fell down again : ("

    "She fell down the stairs because the step height was inconsistent, that needs to be fixed ASAP."

    \2. If it is pointed, hostile, or drumming up anger, it should NOT be allowed.

    Examples:

    "It's the Radical Escalator Group that weakened stair legislation!"

    "She should have been more careful. This is clearly on the old lady."

    \3. If it is dismissive of the good news or tries to make people feel bad for enjoying the good news, it should NOT be allowed.

    Examples:

    "Sure SHE recovered, but what about the hundreds of stair fall victims who don't?"

    "How does this help anyone?"

    "If you don't check the stairs you use and report bad stairs, this is your fault, and you shouldn't be celebrating her recovery."

    \4. General negativity that does not needlessly effect others should be allowed.

    Examples:

    "My grandma fell down the stairs too. Hoping for a recovery"

    "My stairs are all messed up too, but sadly I rent, so I can't fix them..."

    "This will likely happen again. We should make sure the needed resources for recovery are available, or the next one might not end so happily."

    I do think the only punishment should be removal and a warning, but I do not mod, so I'll leave that discussion to the experts.

    Edit: formatting x2

  • I don't know why a lot of people are vehemently dismissing instabans as an option (as if it were on the table). We are NOT going to instaban anyone for anything, except for spamming/bludgeoning but even then it'd be a tempban. Is there something in the original post that suggests we're going to instaban?

  • Perchance adding a footnote or an amendment to the rules on the sidebar, e.g. “The Golden Rule: If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

    There will always be be Debbie Downers, Negative Nellies and Angry Adams waiting to rain on someone’s parade. Having read plenty of Lemmy drama, a common complaint is that the rules are “impossible for a user to follow unless it is made clear” and “disagreeing with [mod’s name] gets you banned”.

    We all know that sometimes there are negative aspects of that Uplifting News but common sense dictates that I keep that negativity to myself and gladly upvote anyway. Am I glad that Huntington’s disease is treatable? Of course! Am I going to tell Lemmy about not-so-nice things I learned from the physicians in my family? Oh no, not a chance. Why not? There’s always someone in Lemmy hoping to read about a cure for a disease that their loved one was diagnosed with. Who am I to take that hope away from them?

    For the sake and sanity of both users and moderators, I agree that the rules should be made clear(er) so neither moderator nor user can feign ignorance.

    For example:

    “Your comment was removed for breaking Rule 1a: Spreading negativity; Rule 12c: Citation without Source(s); Rule 99x: Toxic comment irrelevant to post”

    1st Offense: Comment removed and greet someone a Happy Cake Day, no time served 2nd Offense: Explain your strengths and weaknesses in two paragraphs, due in 24 hours or 7-day ban. 3rd Offense: Thesis on the Effects of Positive Thinking, due in 72 hours or 1 year ban.

    Disclaimer: The moderators of Uplifting News community reserves the right to update rules, remove content and ban users.

    OP, I commend you for this inclusive post and your proactive approach towards making this community better. Everyone on this thread has made insightful comments. Laws change and evolve everyday in this world that we live in, there’s no reason why the Uplifting News community can’t do the same.

    Thank you.

  • I come here for respite from the cynicism and darkness and would rather not see those kinds of comments. But I don't know about them being entirely removed in case they contain clarifications or context.

    I think commenters should make more of an effort to reflect the tone of the community if they do feel the need to criticise the post and I think mods should put these kind of comments behind a filter like for nsfw posts.

  • I think it's a valiant idea, but a lotta people don't necessarily look at the community before engaging to even take specific community rules into account. Especially if the post title is inflammatory in one way or another.

    Rules about how you must behave that extend beyond generally not being a bad actor just confuse newcomers and may turn them off entirely to the idea, even though the intention is not bad.

    • True, and upvoted btw, but then all the more reason to remove comments and ultimately even ban people if need be (for repeated and/or more egregious offences), not out of any unfriendliness and rather our of a desire to fulfill the very intent of this community, even when people just passing by refuse to bother to read the rules.

      This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today’s news cycle.

      If people are turned off by enforced positivity, they are welcome to block the community, but less welcomed to ignore the needs of any community that simply wants to exist in peace.

      Similarly there are women-only spaces, and LGBTQIA+ spaces, etc. where the needs of people just passing by are treated as being of considerably less value than those inside of it, who just want a moment to breathe without having to justify their existence to someone else who refuses to understand, or even someone who is legitimately "just asking questions", but like... do that at another time, in some other place, you know?

      (I can't see the report queue so am speaking entirely theoretically here and could be missing something from that context. We both seem to be in agreement that it is good to be kind, just differing on how to enact that i.e. who needs it more, in this space.)

      • Enforcement is the bigger issue than the rule, too. Immediate removal/banishment is too heavy handed. I personally rather dislike how uncommon it is for a written warning to be given for a first time minor offense. A polite reminder of the rules (maybe as a pinned comment on bigger, active posts) is better than immediate mod action that generally also comes with zero communication. And if you do a removal, telling the user why goes a long way.

        Also good to keep in mind that there's a lotta anarchists here on Lemmy and I can only assume they, like I do, don't really like authority so even a simple and justified mod action can be perceived harsher here. Shit, just look at all the mod drama comms! 🤣

        In the end, I just want what everyone, users and mods, would agree is fair.

  • Remove. It's already unwelcome per the community info.

    Furthermore, political and "orphan crushing machine" type posts should also be removed.

    • What would be your criteria for removing a comment?

    • do you mean posts that are an "orphan crushing machine" or comments that say the post is an "orphan crushing machine"?

      these seem like serious discussions that should be had in either way. one person going "I know it when I see it" is going to be highly inaccurate and if commenters can't talk it out nobody can give the info that would be needed to make a decision.

      I'm not a regular or anything. Just don't want lose my comment priveledges if I pop in and go "hey guys I know there's a darker side to this particular good news"

      • I’m not a regular or anything. Just don’t want lose my comment priveledges if I pop in and go “hey guys I know there’s a darker side to this particular good news”

        But... genuinely, why?

        Have you taken a look at the rules for this community? (Or were you just popping in now to comment?)

        This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today’s news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity’s capacity for good

        How does “hey guys I know there’s a darker side to this particular good news” help to foster that goal? In fact, how does that not work against that goal? If it is closer to the latter than the former, then perhaps you have a genuine difference in opinion where you disagree (strongly?) with the very premise of this community's existence? At which point why not simply block it and move on to others that are more worth your time, to have the kinds of discussions that you would enjoy more, and cause less friction that neither you nor the people that this community will attract seemingly want?

    • What would be your criteria for removing a post as "orphan crushing machine"? (Also, political posts meeting the "More clarification" paragraph at https://lemmy.world/post/30918729 are already removed, the most recent but weak example being the post on Sanders having his tour go to NYC for a Mamdani town hall.) (Separate threads, separate comments.)

  • (using my main for more in-depth personal thoughts:) Personally, I don't think we should, as it's too subjective a thing to have a rule against, and downvotes already exist to measure subjective opinion. There is the concern that like the schadenfreude situation, the upvotes are coming from the !all people over that of this commag, but schadenfreude is much easier to set a bright-line rule for and it doesn't seem like negative comments are dominating our commag.

  • Mods thank you for all the work you do and also go fuck yourselves you thin skinned pricks on a windy day.

    Only joking really, I haven't met any of you.

  • Remove and no ban. If you don’t like removing the ever increasing bad attitudes of humans then stop being a mod

    • I am once once again asking for your bars—what should be the bar/criteria for removal?

      I think we should ask for and respect the decision of the community instead of imposing our own judgements. And of course, we still remove personal attacks (not that your admittedly negative-ish comment counted as one /gen).

      • Sure, here's an opinion.

        Banning is permanent and shouldn't be first or immediate response. Repeat offenders that cross some quality or quanity threshhold may deserve that, but you should adopt power rangers rules and seek proportional responses, and only escalate as a response where possible.

        Bans should be transparent, contestable, and consistent in their application. However fair or unfair the rules you settle on, the perception of that consistency and impartiality influences the communitiea reaction. Too gentle and your community's purpose blurs into something unintended, too harsh and your users will flee for greener pastures.

        Asking instead of dictating is the right approach in my opinion so I think you're aimed in a good direction.

        Three strikes is where I would start, but maybe some strikes count for more than others? This is a hard problem and the answer will change over time. In cases where you can't be consistent though, you must be transparent to salvage the trust you're eroding.

      • Personal attacks are pretty subjective. As are the “uncivil” rules. But I think context really matters. If I told you that I thought you should go kill yourself, which I am not, that would definitely be Something I should be banned for.

        Name calling is a good comment to remove, but only if the other party is 100% innocent. I wouldn’t want anyone banned for calling me a cunt. Just let people slap fight.

        Blatant racism, sexism, bigotry, those get removed, multiples are a ban, but you can’t take the reported reason as fact.

        Modding is rough, I get it. Do less modding. We won’t burn it down.

  • If those are your examples of negativity, I am unimpressed. To channel Homer S., "pffft, I'm more negative than that."

    • Those are what's being reported and people are demanding removed. I personally don't think they need removal either.

      • Yeah, it's a slippery slope where moderators burn out because they're policing tone while users cry about censorship.

32 comments