I’d be very interested to know how an article discussing the recent Prodigy cancellation that doesn’t take a “star trek is ending” viewpoint is considered “Fake News”
and warranting a moderator removal action by @[email protected]. Whom expanded on their reasoning in a direct message stating:
That website has been publishing misinformation for years, and they will not be getting any clicks from us
This seems like a heavy handed mod overreach that we are trying to escape on Reddit considering it’s an opinion piece being shard and not a news article claiming to present any facts other than what is already public.
If there are sites we seem untrustworthy, it should be up to the community to approve lists of banned sites. Not be up to the whim of wether or not that article comes from a site the mods/admins personally like.
I’d encourage the mods to explain their actions, it appears as though the article presented a viewpoint that wasn’t popular by a admin of the instance so it was removed without prejudice. This is an infringement on the values that those of us as Trekkies hold dear.
If there are sites we seem untrustworthy, it should be up to the community to approve lists of banned sites.
Yes, as an admin you can police you instance however you want. However, removing star trek content from this community because you don’t like the opinion presented is only self sabotaging to the growth of Lemmy and the Fediverse as a whole.
Moving forward, let’s try to keep this community from fracturing off across other Lemmy instances because of some moderator overreach. I’m hopeful given the usually stellar reputation of this community they will public ally explain their actions and present a plan moving forward that will hold mods accountable should they be found removing content that doesn’t violate our community standards and rules.
Not a mod, but just tossing out there that there are a few genre sites that do not make any effort to meet basic journalistic norms.
It makes sense, when this disregard of minimal journalistic standards is an established fact, through a pattern of articles and analysis pieces, for mods to have an automatic policy of removing posts amplifying their content. Promoting unsubstantiated rumour and gossip without any credible sources doesn’t meet the minimum standards for example. The mods shouldn’t be under obligation to verify the lack of journalistic standards in every single piece of content from the source once the pattern is established.
This particular site and one other definitely fall into the category.
If this was another Trek-related subreddit, there would be a pile on from regular users telling everyone to ignore it and not to give them clicks.
TL;DR: to me, articles from sites that make no effort to meet basic journalistic standards shouldn’t be considered meeting community guidelines.
This seems like a heavy handed mod overreach that we are trying to escape on Reddit
It’s the same mods (or so I’ve been told).
GFR is like the journalist article version of Midnight’s Edge. Literally does nothing but report on non-sense and inject it with extraordinary amounts of vitriol and bad faith arguement.
I actually wrote up a pretty strong disagreement for that post between the moment it appeared and when it got taken down, because the author clearly has a chip on their shoulder and wants to complain that anything that isn’t Picard S3 or SNW is done by people who “don’t get Trek” and that both shows “aren’t a good fit for the universe.” Neither of these things are true, considering Disco was created by long-time Berman-Era Trek contributor Bryan Fuller, and Prodigy is quite possibly one of the Trekkiest shows around.
They just don’t like anything marginally different from their 90s comfort nostalgia formula that sent us straight into our wilderness years after franchise fatigue with Enterprise.
The mods would have had auto-mod blocklist that domain over on r/startrek, so it shouldn’t be a surprise it gets removed here either.
Agreed
If the piece was merely sharing an opinion, it does seem like over-moderation to remove something like that. I often take the approach of surface-level content moderation, as I don’t have the time or desire to vet every single link and keep track of which sites have the “right” viewpoints on certain things. Vote-based sites like Lemmy or Reddit often are sufficient to weed out bad links; a mod’s job should be to remove content that is obviously against the plain meaning interpretation of the community rules. If someone posts a Nazi flag here with the title “Hitler Rules,” it would obviously be against any rules about “hateful content.” However, this is the equivalent of someone saying, “This article about which bottled water brands are the best is bad because the person who wrote it said something mean to me a few years ago.”
And he was banned for this post.
Come on guys, can we not turn this place into a shithole this way? what’s wrong with a conversation?
Down with furiously masturbating moderation 2023
