• Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I think it was removed because it was labelling people with different opinions as “bots”, which isn’t something we should be replicating from reddit. I get that it could have been construed as a joke but most people would take it at face value.

    • xelar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Won’t you agree that the reason for removal should be more specific?

    • HonkyTonkWoman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I saw that post & completely disagree. The only thing uncivil about that post was removing it.

    • Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      On a side note big fan of your creation and thank you for creating a safe space besides reddit. Just came here because someone linked me to you. Just wanted to thank you and no sarcasm in any of this much love mate. Also did you know you have your own wiki page?

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No probs, thanks!

        I think that’s just the historical page on the Haitian revolutionary leader.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is just simplistic and un-nuanced thinking.

          The use of bots is not to generate new opinions, it is to make fringe opinions seem more popular than they are. Most (but not all) opinions propagated this way are already worthy of dismissal for other reasons, but when it’s clear that someone is repeating word-for-word a line of dismissable or unsound rhetoric which is also being propagated by those bots, it lends itself to three reasonable conclusions:

          1. This person genuinely believes that and was not influenced by the bots to do so, i.e. it is a coincidence
          2. This person genuinely believes that but only because they were stupid enough to get absorbed by the bots
          3. This person does not genuinely believe that and is acting in bad faith

          Only in case 1 is such an opinion worth discussing, but the vast majority of cases will be case 2 or case 3.

          That is why it is reasonable to dismiss such opinions despite the possibility that they are genuine, in good faith, and not the product of propaganda. Because the odds that they’re not are vastly greater. Nobody can be certain of anyone’s intentions on the Internet, so rational actors can only play a game of “What is the most likely scenario?”.

          • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            and not the product of propaganda.

            If any of the collective you actually believed this we wouldn’t have half the arguments we do with ledditors like you because you’d have examined your own biases borne of Western propaganda by now. This… Idle sophistry, to be as polite about it as I physically can about it, doesn’t pass the smell test.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      They were literally a bot tho

      Lemmy seems to have this zero tolerance policy for calling other users bots, which is…problematic given that we KNOW there are plenty of bots out there.

      • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        99% of the time “you’re a bot” is backed by zero evidence besides someone disagreeing with you; it’s redditor derailment bullshit

        The 1% of the time there’s any evidence at all, it’s never removed