Everyone on Lemmy seems to be trying to find ways to reduce content, as if we're sitting here drowning in it.
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
62 points (81.6% liked)
News
25286 readers
3755 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Right?! LMAO
That’s kind of been my position too. Like I guess “people were posting low quality content” but if it’s no evidence of malice/rule breaking, what’s stopping people from just curating their feed and blocking users they see too much?
Still fifty-fifty on this for the record but I am glad there is more wholesome and constructive discussion on this still coming in :)
If you or others don't like the quality of content, then post more quality content. You can always block people you don't wanna get news from.
You are acting like Lemmy has some sway over the world or elections. Dude, hardly anyone has even heard of Lemmy.
Lemmy's need to go outside and visit the real world for a bit. lol
Yeah this is also where I am more or less coming from. I think it’s good for it to be said in a meta post where the discussion is built for it.
Fair enough.
I have yet to see any frequent posters pushing misinformation.
I have yet to see any frequent posters discouraging participation.
I have yet to see any frequent posters pushing quantity over quality.
To me, it seems like this post is addressing what's currently a non-issue. That is, this feels like someone's pet peeve about frequent posters dressed up as something beneficial using a list of non-applicable pros.
Meanwhile, news communities are posted to so infrequently on Lemmy that literal bots exist to fill the gaps. I would much prefer a human than a bot indiscriminately hammering the community with news (absent any evidence whatsoever that this would improve human engagement, when realistically, any humans who'd want to participate could do so at any time but haven't).
Agreed!
!politics@lemmy.world had UniversalMonk in the run up to the American election. They have about 15 alts, posted an average of 16 articles a day just on the main account, and would pointedly refuse to engage with any discussion of the actual content of the article in the comments. They were banned for "Indiscriminate posting of duplicate stories from different sources to flood the channel."
That's not this community, of course, but I think it is proof enough that it's not an unreasonable concern for OP to have
They have about 15 alts,
So the banning seems totally ineffective. And Trump would have won anyway. So again, banning was totally ineffective and did nothing but spurn him on to post from more alts.
If you all would have just let him do his thing, you could block him and then never see his stuff.
But you all decided ban, he spread out amongst instances and usernames and now posts more than ever. lol
I'll note that I consistently called out Monk to the point that multiple comments of mine lambasting them got deleted (the mods were just being fair and enforcing the rules consistently; hats off).
However, there are some points you've failed to take into account:
-
(Most important) Monk posted to /c/politics at most about three times per day. This is realistically the bare minimum amount you'd want as a cap on posts per day. You can go back and check this for yourself; the overwhelming majority of their posts were on communities they created and moderated. Checking the month of September, the exception I saw to this was September 8th, where they posted four. This rule would have done absolutely nothing to deter their propaganda campaign.
-
As your own comment notes, making alts is a trivial matter, especially assuming you're more subtle about the angle you're pushing than Monk was. That I was aware of Monk for months but knew and heard nothing about these purported alts is, to me, evidence of that.
-
Every single post by Monk was heavily downvoted because everyone knew what they were doing.
-
The main problem with Monk was their comments, wherein they would engage in essentially copy-pasting Gish gallop responses. The moderators knew banning Monk would've made the community healthier because of this exact behavior but refused to take action.
-
Even if the problem had been the quantity of the posts to /c/politics (it wasn't), the moderators would've been able to use their discretion to ban Monk instead of a blanket ban on frequent posts.
TL;DR: Monk's problem on /c/politics had nothing to do with and could not have been stopped by such a rule proposed in the OP.
Great points! Have my upvote.
Fair enough!
UM was a case for moderators to use their discretion, not a blanket ban for everyone who posts a lot.
There are a couple accounts that do a lot of heavy lifting for these communities in a fair and balanced way.
I still see him all over Lemmy.
That’s because your instance didn’t ban them.
I feel bad for them whenever they pop out of containment again but I really enjoyed their erotic friend fiction they would write.
That’s because your instance didn’t ban them.
Good! It appears that most instances didn't ban him/her. So you all didn't do anything to dissuade him and he probably posts more than ever under alt names and instances. lol
Seems you all fed the troll. And he probably loves that you are still talking about him.
Most instances in terms of user base did.
Also are you allowed to use pronouns like that?
"Most" instances didn't though. Not only that, it takes a few seconds to create an alt username. So he/she probably didn't stop posting in here at all.
No, probably not.
The admins at world and most of the other large instances usually ban their alts pretty quick though which is probably good for UM’s mental health.
How would this rule prevent alts? Seems like it would encourage their use if anything
This is an excellent point, added to the cons list in the body text
It's not an unreasonable concern, no. But I'd rather the community be active and growing than address something that's not currently an issue.
And now he just posts to other communities. Banning didn't do anything to stop him, while Trump still won. Banning him just spread him out even more. It's also very easy to just create new usernames. He probably has lots of alt usernames. So he can still post anywhere he wants to.
Banning did absolutely nothing to stop him. I still see his all over Lemmy. Welcome to the fediverse.
there are several news communities and most likely people look at multiple. multiposters will still be able to post to the fediverse news communities overall regardless of some rule on this community.
Sounds like a good way to lose our most prevalent posters and kill the community.
Yep
I certainly think the number of the limit is a key consideration and really makes it or breaks it.
We do allow [META] posts, when in good faith and on topic.
Allowing this to stay up.
There ought to be rules governing these posts to keep users who don't check the community on weekends or off hours from being blindsided by rule changes. Something like a designated day of the week for meta posts and a minimum time duration they need to be considered for.
Your comment is confusing because this is a petition post, not a rule change. I have no leadership role here. If anything changes there will most likely be internal mod communication and then an announcement post if the rule change is significant enough to merit it.
Thanks! Of course I never had any doubts about this being left up but I do find it funny the number of people who were rudely adamant that this post was impossible, impossible I tell you!
cc @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat @catloaf@lemm.ee I encourage you to add your input under this impossible post. :)
Ha. My input for what it's worth:
I'm not sure about setting a hard-and-fast rule, in part because at present some of the heaviest posters are also the highest-quality posters. MicroWave often reaches 10-15 posts per day, and their contributions are clearly an improvement to the community. I wouldn't want to set any kind of rule that would imply that they shouldn't be doing that.
The issue with The Poster Who Shall Not Be Named was not only that, on some days, they were hitting 20-30 posts per day to this community alone, but also that the posts were of an amazingly low quality. In my mind, proper moderation should take account of that kind of thing and use common sense and responsiveness to community complaints, meaning we don't need a special specific rule "please don't make 30 crap posts in a single day." The issue was mostly just that they weren't contributing good things to the community, not that there is some upper limit to how many posts in a day people should be doing.
Valuable analysis ty
Actually as @TheTechnician2@lemmy.world pointed out in his post:
(Most important) Monk posted to /c/politics at most about three times per day. This is realistically the bare minimum amount you’d want as a cap on posts per day. You can go back and check this for yourself; the overwhelming majority of their posts were on communities they created and moderated. Checking the month of September, the exception I saw to this was September 8th, where they posted four. This rule would have done absolutely nothing to deter their propaganda campaign.
And also, banning Monk did nothing to stop him. He's still all over Lemmy posting whatever he wants to. As is his right. Not to mention how easy it is to create alts.
I actually meant a different user, not UniversalMonk. This whole meta post stemmed out of some minor unrelated localized drama, I didn't name the user because it's 100% irrelevant to this whole discussion except in the sense of having sparked it off in the first place.
But also, UniveralMonk posted a lot more than 3 times. For anyone who's an admin, the query if you're interested is:
Huge SQL Query
WITH daily_post_counts AS (
SELECT
DATE(p.published) as post_date,
p.creator_id,
per.actor_id as poster_actor_id,
COUNT(*) as post_count,
-- Rank posters within each day by their post count
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (
PARTITION BY DATE(p.published)
ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC
) as poster_rank
FROM post p
JOIN person per ON p.creator_id = per.id
WHERE
-- Filter for the specific community
p.community_id = (
SELECT id
FROM community
WHERE actor_id = 'https://lemmy.world/c/politics'
)
-- Exclude deleted and removed posts
AND NOT p.deleted
AND NOT p.removed
GROUP BY
DATE(p.published),
p.creator_id,
per.actor_id
)
SELECT
post_date,
poster_actor_id,
post_count
FROM daily_post_counts
WHERE poster_rank <= 3
ORDER BY
post_date DESC,
post_count DESC;
It's actually a lot more interesting to look over than I thought it would be. It's all pretty normal at the beginning, but then at the end of April, there starts to be a sprinkling of a multitude of pretty-bad-faith-IMO posters, all starting to be represented more or less at the same time. They all just kind of start up in a little sprinkling, and then at the beginning of July, that stops and it starts to be almost all either normal posters or return2ozma, and then in early August UniversalMonk shows up, and they're both heavily featured from then on. They're both competitive with the heaviest of the other posters, with UniversalMonk peaking I think at 17 posts in one day on October 8th. Then, in late October, UM gets banned, and it goes back completely to normal except for occasional bursts of single posters (Joker@sh.itjust.works being an example) popping up and doing super-heavy posting and then disppearing as they get banned.
I also see at least one of the heavy productive-post posters, that people don't tend to hate the posts of, dropping out of the rotation, when they used to be heavily featured. That to me is a really sad thing. I have no idea why, sometimes stuff happens, but to me it seems at least a little bit likely that they got driven away by the periodic floods of propaganda and nonsense infesting what was just a normal news community, which would be really sad if that's how it happened.
UniversalMonk peaking I think at 17 posts in one day on October 8th
In one community though? Because that's like 2 posts a day over an 8 hour day. Lots of posters post more than that even now, and they're not called trolls. Look at how much Blaze posts and comments. lol
And you, yourself sir, are on A LOT. Like how many posts and comments do you make a day?
cc @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat @catloaf@lemm.ee I encourage you to add your input under this impossible post. :)
hahahahaha
Philipthebucket likes to talk about how much he hates .world, but he's still here looking around every day. lmao
Yes, I always read the comments in detail under every single post, just looking to see if someone has @ed me, since Lemmy for some reason doesn't send a notification for that. Someday, maybe they'll get around to implementing that.
I actually do read !news@lemmy.world, it is the last remaining big-name LW community that I'm still subscribed to. I like the posts in general and I often upvote them. I usually stay out of the comments unless something specifically draws my attention to them, and when I visit I am often struck by the high level of stupidness and regret having come into them in the first place.
I think the moderation here used to be quite good, an anomaly among LW communities, but now it seems like it's succumbing to the tide.
if the mods notice a problem, then maybe consider action. but until then, no action needed
I don't think the proposal is necessary, at least not until it can account for the possibility of someone creating a legion of alt accounts to circumvent the rule.
In fact, if I am trying to push propaganda/news from biased sources, it would probably improve credibility if I stage it to look like it is coming organically from a dozen different accounts instead of just one.
yep
That’s an excellent point. Like, if we are going to have high-volume power users (which is an inevitability) it’s honestly arguably good and transparent for them to use single accounts that individual users can block—like at least they are known power users and it’s not being obfuscated.
I’m personally still fifty-fifty on the rule but this did sway me a bit.
Posting this because no one else seems to want to,
Maybe because it's a bad idea that wouldn't solve something that's not even a problem but would make the community more difficult to use.
- Frequent posters don't hold any more special influence than irregular posters, posts are sorted by their upvotes and downvotes not by who posts them.
- A community with stupid rules that removes your post for no reason because you went beyond some arbitrary limit will discourage new members from participating
- It is dumb to think about a news community in terms of quality and quantity. Not every news article should be some 10000 word Pulitzer prize winning deep dive, some of them are just going to be two paragraph breaking news updates. Also, there are some days where not a lot of news happens and some days where a ton happens, and this idea would just make the community struggle to be relevant and up to date on those big news days. If somebody posts a dumb news story, downvote it and leave a comment about why it's dumb and post a better one.
- I don't want you or anyone else determining the value of another post for me beyond your up/downvote and comment. If the post actually breaks a community rule that we've all been informed about and agree to by participating then a mod can remove it, but if you just don't like what's being discussed then just downvote and deal with it, and if you just don't like the person who posted it then please fuck off with your incivility to another website.
- People who really do want to push misinformation will just make alts that will work around this system, so you'll be making the community harder for people to use transparently while doing nothing to discourage bad actors
and it’s a discussion worth having outside of drama or personal conflicts.
If you wanted to avoid personal conflicts maybe don't propose a rule judging posts based on who posted them and what else they've posted instead of the content of the post itself
Fucking great post, sir!
Thanks for your input! It is valuable.
Re: your last paragraph. I’m literally just a third party user who was not involved in any of the conflict in any way, suggesting one potential resolution that at this point I still think could go either way.
It’s fair to assume that I was talking about myself but rest assured I have no personal investment here and my only commitment is to what is best for the community. :)
I prefer quality over quantity but is the limited number of posters because they are quick to post news as it happens or because Lemmy is still relatively small?
I rarely post here but YES, this is a very good idea.
Fine with me
Sounds like a great idea.
view more: next ›