Do you think community engagement should be a response to misinformation or moderation be the response? I've already seen some trolls be answered with a flurry of factual links debunking misinformation claims, and it was glorious.
I think we may need to stipulate and employ the use of badges (similar to submission flair from reddit) so that users can use kbin QoL userscripts to filter out content they don't want.
Other discussions in this thread have highlighted reputable sources of content. This can include NYT opinions and news, but would never permit content from OANN.
I hope this addresses the concern about opinion/editorial content.
Yeah, I don't think the goal can ever be pure, emotionless neutrality from a mod team.
The line may be subjective, but I want it to be transparent. Some rules may be arbitrary, but applied consistently and are sourced from the community who wants to live with them.
Fully agreed about blacklists and whitelists. I would like to base those lists on something very public and transparent such as the Media Bias Chart so it doesn't seem like the mods are being arbitrary and targeting one user just because we are opposite sides of the aisle.
I don't want this place to be a joyless hellscape of too much reality LOLOL
Humor, sarcasm, wit, satire should all be expected in the comment sections. Humor that punches down or is trolling in the guise of humor I guess will just be downvoted to hell. oh well.
As we collectively discuss this and come to a conclusion that most of us feel a sense of ownership over, I just want to state point blank that I do not want to see duplicate posts with the same link just because two users have opposite viewpoints on the ramifications of the news.
However, I'm fine with one poster giving CNN's article on a newsworthy event and another user posting the Associated Press's article of the same event. Those two news sources (among others) will have different perspectives, voices, and information. That lends itself to robust community engagement, to me.
