this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
-1 points (0.0% liked)

politics

23183 readers
2688 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
-1
A note on Universal Monk: (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So we've seen the complaints and the reports and boy oh boy are there complaints and reports.

I've discussed the account with the other mods and admins multiple times, and while we agree the volume is a lot, it doesn't point to a botfarm or multiple people using the account.

Obsessive? Absolutely, but not technically rule breaking... Until today.

Today they indescriminately posted the same story three times from three different sources apparently solely to flood the channel showing a decided lack of judgement.

It's a valid story from a valid source, the original has been kept here:

https://lemmy.world/post/21098916

The others have been removed as duplicates.

I'm also applying a 15 day temp ban on the account.

"15 days? That's oddly specific! What's in 15... OH!"

collapsed inline media

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

HOW do you post here 1.9k times in two months? I have like 7 posts in over a year and I feel somewhat active.

I’m not complaining about any decisions mods have made, I’m legitimately asking cause that seems crazy. 32 posts a day is a LOT.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I told them in PMs that, as a mod, I self limit to 3 posts a day for fear of being seen as putting my thumb on the scale and influencing the discourse.

And that's in the groups I mod(!)

He's over that by a factor of 10+

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what his deal was but anyone who is that gleefully belligerent when confronted by people who don't like what he's doing isn't really anyone I want around. Coincidently, I blocked him today. I don't think he was doing anything wrong other than sheer volume of one-note posts. But I got tired of all the comment sections being about him. And I think I've absorbed enough of his point of view for a time.

For all I know he was just trying to keep folks riled up enough to vote. But those posts didn't add to the value of the community IMO.

[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

For a while I didn't block them b/c I wanted to see what and how much they were posting. The shtick was indeed getting old and after seeing the glut of posts today, I blocked them. Enough is enough and I know what they are about.

Trolling. Trolling and disinformation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pooperNickel@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Firstly, thank you for that ban. Did you notice the duplicate section in my comment? Low effort comments, dismissiveness, refusing to engage in good faith even when someone treats him very respectively, and copy-pasting the same responses many times is only one of several signs this is a troll. This behavior breaks rule 4.

No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.

I do not understand how anyone could possibly look at the evidence I provided and say "nah, not a troll".

For your convenience:

Top 10 duplicate (total 617 exact and 318 fuzzy, 70% or more similar) submissions from UniversalMonk@lemmy.world found.

spoiler 'Thank you!' x 27
  • 'Yep!' x 24
  • spoiler 'k' x 23
  • 'Agreed!' x 21
  • spoiler 'I don't know what you mean.' x 20
  • 'I don't have to explain anything to you. Thanks!' x 14
  • spoiler 'Right?' x 13
  • 'Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from thir...' x 12
  • spoiler 'Exactly!' x 11
  • 'To cut through the nonsense and save everyone time...' x 10
    • [–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I get that, but hear me out... it's just as likely that they're an obsessive compulsive, possibly on the autism spectrum, who can't stand letting someone have the last word.

    https://neurodivergentrebel.com/2021/09/15/autism-obsessive-behavior-why-i-cant-always-let-things-go-as-an-autistic-person/

    https://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/28892-arguing-with-other-asd-people-someone-always-has-to-have-the-last-word/

    Now, I'm no clinical psychologist, I'm not competent to make that diagnosis, but I'm sure you've also seen arguments between two people incapable of letting it go.

    collapsed inline media

    [–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Are you trolling us now?

    [–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago

    Am I allowed to speculate about the mental health of other users as well I wonder, or is that just reserved for mods?

    [–] pooperNickel@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    So if I want to copy paste the same non-response 26 times, I will not get banned for it, as long as I don't say overtly mean things? I would absolutely assume that would get me perma banned if I kept doing it.

    [–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    As long as it's not a non-sensical response and seems to fit the comment chain, I don't see an inherent problem there.

    Example:

    "Well, we agree to disagree." full stop. Discussion ended. No, I don't have an issue with that.

    [–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    If the thread is 52 comments and that's posted 26 times, that is a dead thread. There is an inherent problem with that.

    Posting should be an attempt to create discussion. If the poster tries to end discussion in the comments, that's just making noise. Eventually, a community of just noise will die.

    [–] odelik@lemmy.today -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Do not treat neuro divgerent people with training wheels.

    I'm neuro divgerent and it pisses me off when people treat me differently. Yeah, I've got my shit, and I often need things explained to me with clear guidelines, rules, and expectations.

    But one thing my neuro divergence doesn't grant me is the ability to act like a shit stain and get away with it while prodding everybody around me antagonisticly.

    [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -1 points 6 months ago

    The response here is not about whether their behavior was socially acceptable, but whether it was an indication of a fake account being run by multiple people or a script or something.

    I'm personally suspicious due to all those cut and pasted replies, but I suppose it's possible that's just an indication of obsession as well. I've saved text for a comment reply before, but it was because the text had a lot of citations and I was tired of refinding them each time. There doesn't seem to be a lot of reason to save and repeat "I don't have to explain anything to you. Thanks!"

    [–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I want to second this. I understand the mods prefer a case-by-case approach, but I think that leaves a very specific pathway for bad actors to exploit. Monk was posting a purely insane amount of comments along with a very high but not as insane number of posts, and almost all of it was low-value, and often copy-pasted from a previous comment.

    Do the mods even have easy access to the kind of data your script was pulling? I think that may be part of the issue is that the mod tools with Lemmy are lacking/limited.

    [–] Archer@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    He had a standard copypasta for people accusing him of being a troll. If that’s not trolling I don’t know what is

    [–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

    Ha! Yeah - in fact it evolved and expanded to the extent of almost all of his interactions being simply copying and pasting his responses ad nauseum. Very rarely saw him say anything he hadn't already parroted back dozens and dozens of times. I kinda get why some people accused him of being a bot, because it's hard to imagine a human deriving anything out of those sorts of interactions.

    [–] pooperNickel@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

    I am not entirely sure what tools they have, but yeah the script was just pulling data from the public api. Anyone can write this script, and I will open source it if folks are interested. It could be good to have a set of tools similar to this one which mods could run with minimal effort.

    [–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

    The number of comments/posts makes me think they're getting paid per comment or post (or maybe per reply?)

    In any case, I still find it funny that in one of their earlier posts I called Stein a Russian stooge and they took personal offense to that. (for a moment, I wondered if maybe they were stein.)

    [–] odelik@lemmy.today -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    I think the bigger issue here is the indiscriminate obvious trolling.

    The fact that it took "bad judgment" and not the reading between the lines for their sealioning and bad faith arguments and faux "friend" comments points towards the need for strengthening our community standards.

    Allowing people to come in and troll under the guise of "I'm following the rules lolololol" makes the mods look like rubes.

    [–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    When it comes to moderation, I'm of the opinion that it should never be a "read between the lines" interpretation. If we're going to take action as severe as a ban, it should not be open to interpretation.

    For example, I remember a comment that was reported and removed for referencing the whole disingenuous question "when did you stop beating your wife?"

    Reported and removed for call to violence, and I had to explain to the other mod that "no, no, they're making a point about asking disingenous questions..."

    Post was restored.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

    [–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

    That was my comment. I'm both a little embarrassed that got referenced after so long, but was also impressed in the moment that someone took the time to actually understand the context in which it was made.

    So, I'm torn on the issue of what the appropriate course of action would be in the instance of UniversalMonk, and when it should have been taken. I see the validity in your argument in regards to not moderating in the gray area due to the abuse & power-brokering that comes along with it.

    At the same time, in order to create a healthy community long-term I think there needs to be some way to enforce a more black & white standard that dissuades people from engaging in this kind of behavior because it drives away legitimate users who care about the platform.

    I don't necessarily have a good solution for that, and again I do appreciate the complexity of the situation from a moderation standpoint.

    [–] odelik@lemmy.today -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Yes, but when there's literally thousands of posts and comments to build the "between the lines" data within a 30-day time frame what excuse is there?

    When somebody is trolling so hard that it's causing strife within your community it should be addressed. Identify the behavior that isn't desired and enforce existing rules around it or create a new one and warn the person that they need to operate in good faith within the rules or they will be ousted as an antagonistic troll.

    [–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    In cases like that the default position is to allow the downvotes and individual user blocks to do the job.

    [–] odelik@lemmy.today -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    Which makes your community toxic and your job harder.

    How many reports did you get and have to filter through and ultimately ignore? If that's not an indicator from your community that something needs to change you're not listening to our needs.

    [–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

    My default is to be more lenient because I saw how badly heavy handed moderation can go from 15 years on reddit. ;)

    Too many times what's "toxic" or not was decided by... well...

    https://youtu.be/hYTQ7__NNDI#t=12s

    [–] Pichu0102@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

    The problem with individual user blocks is that if someone submits enough of the links in a community, blocking them means blocking most stories and discussions so you can't really read or participate in the community without leaving them unblocked.

    [–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

    When it comes to moderation, I'm of the opinion that it should never be a "read between the lines" interpretation. If we're going to take action as severe as a ban, it should not be open to interpretation.

    The problem with this is that it allows people to ride the line of what is acceptable and get away with things that effectively poison the platform with toxicity.

    It's very similar to what Trump did, and now look at the state of the entire US politics system now.

    By allowing people to toe the line by not technically breaking the rules, it still adds to the overall toxicity of Lemmy.

    [–] taiyang@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

    Oh holy fuck it's only 15 days away! Anxiety!

    Also having seen the guy, makes sense you can't ban bad takes (or at least, shouldn't) but my sense is he just likes to be infamous. Hell, this is a post about his banning, even! He's probably loving the attention.

    Still, I've got my Lemmy heroes

    obsessive posting can be used for good, like a certain maneuver named after a certain starship captain.

    [–] pooperNickel@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

    Yeah you're right. Notice no one is trying to get those folks banned

    [–] scarabine@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Are you familiar with toxoplasmosis? The disease that mutates into different forms so a bunch of different animals can host it and pass it along.

    This is a long article but it's really good, it's worth a read and it predicted a lot of the discourse of the last decade: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

    The sort of gist of it is this: the more grey area / ambiguity in a topic, the more we pop our own identity into our stance on it. And so if that thing is controversy, we argue about it so much more if there's room to self-insert our identity in that grey area. It spreads and spreads to a bunch of different hosts. It becomes a meme via argument by infecting a bunch of hosts to pass it along.

    And that's Monk.

    Pretty early on, it was very clear that they had no actual understanding of the topics they were talking about. I tried in their first few weeks to engage with them and so did others. Only to find nothing there. No opinions, and all counter-arguments were clearly copy & pasted off of Wikipedia. Things like "we have X amount of members in Maine".

    Please.

    Eventually they stopped trying to engage altogether, and instead moved into a deliberate pattern of line-toeing retorts. None in good faith. But, more importantly, never with enough substance to interrupt the ensuing argument, while simultaneously always enough comment traffic to perpetuate the thread.

    Monk is a memetic toxoplasmosis source vector. Through pure ineptitude or irony, I think they've accidentally turned more people against third parties than for them, but maybe that isn't their goal.

    Even now there's an undercurrent of "I don't think I even disagree with them". Well, how could you? They haven't said anything worth disagreeing with, have they? What have they said, though? Not much. Nothing recognizable as an opinion in defense of the third party articles. Often, just enough to establish a veneer of plausible deniability.

    It's a sophisticated form of trolling and it's recognizable to anyone with a long history of community management online. There are some people who never seem to be directly at fault for things, yet every single time you remove them, the temperature goes down.

    You don't need to actually build a case against these people to know that the equation is simple: when they're around, everyone is angry. When they aren't, people get along better.

    Anyway, my point is this: you can tell who is contributing in good faith and who isn't, because they will attempt to say what's on their mind. It might be the worst take you've ever heard in your life, but it has a concretion to it. Monk has no concrete substance, they simply like to stir the pot.

    [–] quicklime@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

    upvoting for well articulated nuance

    [–] pooperNickel@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

    You've pretty much nailed it.

    [–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

    Absolutely agree with this and for this reason, in my opinion, they really should be instance-banned. They contribute nothing that anyone else isn’t already doing. And they’re absolutely doing it in bad faith.

    So good riddance to bad rubbish.

    [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Agreed. They are being intentionally passive aggressive and they are trying to create discord in this community. They often say that they expect downvotes.

    IMHO, if a user is repeatedly trying to get a rise from other users, then it’s time to go.

    It’s like a little bother holding a finger to your face and saying “I’m not touching you.” They’re following the rules and not hitting their sibling, but know they’re being a pest.

    [–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

    Good they have been trolling us for a while. Also, thank you for your efforts and you are appreciated.

    [–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (12 children)

    I dunno if it's trolling. It's deluded and obsessive demonstrating a lot of free time, but, like, they're passionate about it.

    I mean, they have some magical thinking and logic and I don't think their actions are actually pragmatic towards their goals, but I'm fairly certain it's genuine.

    Either way, this was the right move.

    Edit: ehhhhhh some other comments have shown they were acting like a troll fairly consistently. Maybe this should have been done sooner.

    [–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That's the consensus from the admins and mods. They have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not a TOS violation.

    [–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago

    I think this is balanced and fair. I don't think they demonstrated any supremely shitty opinions, i.e. racism, bigotry, but their presence was incredibly annoying and they didn't really participate in useful conversations and moreso used the reply box as a soapbox to say a lot of nonsense.

    Moreover, I think banning until the election shows an understanding and restraint by the administration team that is commendable.

    [–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    They constantly troll anyone who responds to them. It’s sheer flame bait with every comment.

    All of the posts and comments that user makes are universally Down voted, and pretty much everyone here hates this user. Why on earth you won’t ban them permanently is beyond any of us.

    I appreciate that you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s obvious that they’re main goal is to provoke Arguments. Pretty much everyone in the affected communities, like news and politics, can’t stand the person. Nobody wants them there.

    Please permanently ban them, at least from those communities.

    [–] odelik@lemmy.today -1 points 6 months ago

    Nah. I've dealt with these kind of people since BBSs. They're trolls and get a kick out of the responses.

    They usually have multiple "hidden" agendas.

    First and foremost is to get a rise out of people to get engagement so their message resonates negatively and then is surfaced and viewed by the impressionable.

    Second is to cause strife within the community.

    Third is to get that strife to get people to shift to their viewpoint

    load more comments (10 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›