• @leftzero
    link
    82 months ago

    Their own example of a “differing opinion” to be discussed (i.e., promoted) instead of banned is flat earth lunacy.

    The policy is intended to promote disinformation and hate speech, as was that bot they shoved on all their communities a while ago.

    .world is and has always been a disinformation hub that should have been defederated by every sane instance from the get go.

    • Wren
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Essentially, the policy is to distance .world from other instances that have a more…. Locked down/strict approach. Or in other words, the purpose of the change is to not have .world’s moderation resemble the oppressive methods of moderation of some of the other popular instances.

      Its intention is to stop heavy-handed moderation, and instead create discussion and debate. To not have mods knee-jerk remove/ban content that could have been left to remain and debated. The problem is, it was confusing in its delivery.

      But don’t let this get in the way of whatever grudge you’re holding.

      • @leftzero
        link
        22 months ago

        The purpose is, as .world’s has always been (we all remember the infamous bot), to spread disinformation, though this policy is clearly an escalation in that regard, forcing mods to actively promote it even if they don’t want to.

        At this point no amount of vacuous sophisms can hide that.

        • Wren
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          We see what we want to see, don’t we?

          • @leftzero
            link
            22 months ago

            No, I’d pretty much rather not see it, but it is what it is.