We're not talking about Ukraine, but this post is clearly motivated by Ukraine and the Russian disinformation campaign. I am very familiar with how damaging misinformation can be; I am in fact more familiar with it than I care to admit and I support supressing disinformation, but I'm against a free-for-all rule that isn't specific to the disinformation it is supposed to address. For example, a rule against the denial of the Holocaust, the genocide in Srebrenica, the Armenian genocide and more is perfectly reasonable and is to be expected, but with a rule about "state sponsored propaganda" any discussion could fall prey to punishment if it is in the interest of a specific government.
Partisan chicanery is not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about an example of how people, who are well-meaning and who want to pass on news, could potentially end up punished because they themselves are victims of disinformation; the example the other user gave is the Ghost of Kiev, which is what many posted about when it first appeared, even though they obviously weren't propagandists.
If it isn't a big deal, then why introduce it in the first place? It's a weird take to have.
The possibility of an infraction over insufficiently specified reasons stifles discussion, even if it is just a 5-point infraction.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, I don't disagree with you at all then.
This is a ridiculous statement to make, and demonstrates bad faith.
Stifling bad discussion is the intended and ideal outcome of such a rule. If you can't be sure what you're posting isn't disinformation, you probably shouldn't be posting it.The possibility of an infraction over insufficiently specified reasons stifles discussion, even if it is just a 5-point infraction.
Who determines what is a bad discussion and what isn't? How does one know what a bad discussion is? And I'm not talking about glaringly obvious examples, such as the ones I mentioned in one of the posts above that you quoted. I'm talking about things and examples such as the "Ghost of Kiev", proven to be false.
It's akin to putting up a speed sign without specifying what speed represents the limit. Everyone's got their own take, the internet is highly divided and I dare say radicalized on the most trivial of issues.
Last edited by Magnagarde; 2022-03-11 at 03:47 AM.
Well, we can call all these stories as propaganda then and ban them all. I have a feeling though that it's mostly the pro-russian gentlemen and women who would remain banned far, far longer. No names needed to be mentioned. And whataboutism, that definitely should be considered propaganda as well. Justifying war crimes because someone else, at some other time, did something else, to someone else.
Depends on the severity?
Someone being dum dum and making non-sensical argument is one thing, while certain professional posters straight up having a conveyor belt line spewing war crime supporting agenda is once more about ill intent.
Human judgement needed. Context matters?
That in of itself should be a warning flag, when a supposed terrible and morally corrupt entity suddenly does something that appears virtuous. It's either a broken clock is correct twice a day, or their underlying motivations and reasons aren't so virtuous. Chances are it's the latter if one even has to question whether this is the case or not.
Unfortunately, we'd have to be extremely specific as to what's considered propaganda, as it's too often used as "If it's not my narrative, it's propaganda." Same thing happened with Covid, where information that was considered propaganda and fake news 1-2 years ago by the mainstream (despite evidence to the contrary) is actually the accepted narrative by the mainstream now... but man, if you were one of those 'conspiracy theorists' you were a pariah and probably still considered so by some despite being correct.
Considering how staunchly opinionated people tend to be on this forum, I doubt even legitimate propaganda would be changing anyone's mind at this point. Regardless, I think people should have a healthy skepticism of any news you hear about the situation. If you're getting your political/world news and information from this forum, I'd say the cause is lost already.
“Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.”
“It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
What does the mods handling it have to do with the rule being unclear though? How is that okay if it's an "after-the-fact", done-deal kind of potential punishment that you can't see coming? Once again, glaringly obvious things such as International Criminal Justice and similar things aside.
- - - Updated - - -
I think that the opposite is the case and that it demonstrates bad faith from you. I raised an issue and you tried to trivialize it by saying that it's "only a 5-point infraction, get some perspective". When I raised the question of the trivial nature you yourself superimposed on the issue I raised, you say it's bad faith from me.
This is exactly why rules like this would be a problem, unless listed with specifics. You use two different standards for the same issue depending on whether you think it's bad faith or not, while not seeing the same coming from yourself.
Last edited by Magnagarde; 2022-03-11 at 04:33 AM.
There's no need for any greater "specificity" than with the current rules on trolling, flaming, abusive conduct, hate speech, or any of a dozen other infractable offenses.
This same non-argument crops up constantly, and it mostly involves bad-faith actors trying to ensure there are loopholes they can continue to abuse to escape penalty, moving forward.
- - - Updated - - -
Because you could see it coming. The rule is not "unclear"; no propaganda is to be posted. If you can't tell the difference between propaganda and reasonable discussion, that's a "you" problem, not a lack of clarity in the rules.
I trivialized it because it's an "issue" that's been resolved concretely for years now, and is not in any way a new factor that would affect moderation in any way. Personal judgement has always played a part. I'm speaking of personal experience here, too, not just guessing.I think that the opposite is the case and that it demonstrates bad faith from you. I raised an issue and you tried to trivialize it. When I raised the question of the trivial nature you yourself superimposed on the issue I raised, you say it's bad faith from me. This is exactly why rules like this would be a problem, unless listed with specifics.
I've never been infracted for propaganda, but I potentially could be at any turn and within a reasonable discussion. This is the problem.
Example? If I say that, for example, Russian sportsmen shouldn't be punished over the military invasion by the RF because they aren't complicit, I could be infracted. I most likely won't, but I could because I'm sure there's some Russian politicians who expressed the same opinion.