So you would censor this comment you’ve linked

You’ve misunderstood. You need to re-read that entry.

I have many accounts. No issues on db0 as far as I recall.

I’ve seen removals without rationale. The software allows it and mods tend to only give a reason in the most justifiable cases (spam). I’ve also seen robotic removals, where nothing appears in the modlog. These are entirely untraceable. It happens when a removal is systemwide and not by a local moderator.

Of course these features can be designed to spec. A msg folding action could (and should) force a rationale, which would then be more transparent than removals (which users have to go to the modlog for – only to potentially find nothing). Burying rationale in the modlog is not good for accountability because that’s less visited than the thread, which is where the folding rationale would appear.

And worse, removals are unnoticeable to the author. Authors see their own removed comments just fine. The status quo is very sneaky. I’ve discovered my comments were quietly removed /months/ after the removal, incidentally, because of the subtle way they are implemented. In one case it was because I was searching for my own comment using a different account than what I authored it with, and that was the only reason I could then realize it was removed. If you generally want to know if you have been censored, you need to periodically search for your own posts in the sitewide modlog. It does not get any more subtle than that.

Their job should be removing blatant spam/offensive content.

When removal is the only tool you give them, they use it to remove outright content that is on-topic and civil. Limiting them to heavy tools encourages abuses of power.

No downvotes on hexbear. So no, it’s not the status quo here.

I said “status quo with Lemmy”, thus talking about the software, not the configuration. Note this is a cross-post. The original post was on Sopuli.

The software is designed to use the down votes to arrange the better quality content on top of the thread (to some extent¹). Of course if you disable the functionality on an instance then that particular instance does not use it, which is orthogonal to a discussion of how to improve the software. It would be bad quality engineering to design the software for a specific configuration of a particular instance.

¹ though not entirely because age is a factor AFAICT.

You’re getting pushback because we don’t put a lot of value in civility here and the best way to disagree or criticize someone is to post about it.

You can’t disagree when the post is censored. What do you reply to? I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned an alternative way to discourage a moderator from abusing their power to remove msgs they don’t agree with, which is the most rampant problem with moderation in the threadiverse (not just talking about hexbear but wherever Lemmy runs). The hexbear status quo encourages the abuses of power they think they are discouraging by having blunt tools. Which is not to say I’ve seen any such abuses of power on hexbear… not visited it much.

Folding is not an obligation, so no time is wasted.

There is already some obligation for mods to decide whether each comment should be removed or not (as content can be illegal). But luckily there are mechanisms in place so mods do not have to read every comment. If you are worried that users would use the /alert/ mechanism to ask a mod to fold something, that’s already a risk and a problem. Adding the fold capability does not add to that burden.

folding would be useless

Bizarre that you think that. Bizarre that people are agreeing. Can you elaborate? Why would it be useful to have low-quality content fully expanded by default? Isn’t the status quo with Lemmy to use voting to sink and fold low quality posts?

I personally do not have time to read every single comment when I step into a thread. I want to see the best commentary first and only the less interesting stuff if choose to keep reading, if I have time. The nature of a tree of threads results in some garbage responses to quality comments that rise to the top. If you do not fold anything, you are then forced to see junk before quality, because the 2nd best comment in the tree is still below a low quality reply to the best quality comment.

Bit early for that. I think that approach of implementation without design or discussion is largely why tech has become so enshitified in recent decades. Better quality software emerges from a meticulous series of phases starting with analysis (discussion) and design. It seems kids are being taught to run off and code without thinking which is what leads to bad quality s/w.

To say /subtle/ is to overlook the expressed transparency of mod votes being distinguished from user votes. Anything you understood to undermine transparency is a misunderstanding. Transparency is important. None of the mechanisms mentioned are necessarily opaque if competently designed.

A brainstorm is not meant as a deeply detailed specification. You have to be able to imagine how transparency can be built into the designs.

To say “petty ego tripping” is to misunderstand the purpose of voting. Voting is a means to an ends, not the ends. I doubt anyone gives a shit what the total is (except of course ego trippers). Voting has a utilitarian purpose: to influence a quality score that sinks poor quality content and/or folds it, while raising high quality posts to the top. To have contempt for accurate scoring is to have contempt for quality control and curation.

To worry about voting losing its role of displaying an integer discrete vote count is actually to promote ego tripping. Using the votes for utilitarian purpose diminishes the use case as an ego tripper’s status symbol. So if you oppose ego tripping, you’re actually on the wrong side of this.

Votes could in fact remain as integers, 1 per vote, if you want to preserve the ego tripping function. While the quality score could be a separate number with a composition and calculation that need not be hidden from view.

(update) Consider how SpamAssassin works. It computes a score then it also gives detail on how the score was calculated:

X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 7.2
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,URIBL_BLOCKED
    autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4

Rough example but a post quality score could be more or less similarly refined using smarter criteria than just equal weighted votes per account, particularly if people get multiple categories to vote on.

After describing in detail how a sledge hammer lacks precision for the job at hand, you propose a battering ram. Not only is it a more blunt instrument, it’s also less conducive to quality control. If that tool works for you, why even have moderators?

emphasis mine:

Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.

First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances. There is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain of any given thing you buy, so boycotting GMO is as accurate as ethical consumers can get to boycotting Monsanto. It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and intent to eventually take control over the world’s food supply.

Then there’s the anti-GMO-tech camp (which is what you had in mind). You have people who are anti-all-GMO and those who are anti-risky-GMO. It’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches at the hands of a profit-driven corporation taking every shortcut they can get away with.

So in short:

• Boycott all U.S.-sourced GMO if you’re an ethical consumer. (note the EU produces GMO without Monsanto)
• Boycott just high-risk GMO techniques if you’re unethical but at least wise about the risks. (note this is somewhat impractical because you don’t have the transparency of knowing what technique was used)
• Boycott no GMO at all if you’re ignorant about risks & simultaneously unethical.

So I have to ask why was this post which asked what is a decent client for Debian removed (per rule #3):

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/1681507

while at the same time this “What’s the best Android/iPhone app for Lemmy?” is not removed? Is it because the moderator created this thread & thus /above the law/, in effect?

That would make sense, but then why did they follow that with “Workers need to demand living wages at the same time as ban comes into effect”?

Only real way to get rid of this culture is to ban it to start.

A ban would be a bit extreme. Is tipping banned anywhere?

For me, the fix is to establish a fixed tip like some parts of Europe used to have. E.g. $1—2 per person for good service regardless of bill. This would accomplish two things:

• The tip cannot be an income supplement (thus wages increase if the resto wants to have staff)
• There is still a quality control signal in place

Tipping isn’t bad. Being underpaid is bad. If we as consumers want to add a little more for good service, I don’t see a problem.

The two are at odds with each other; that’s the problem.