this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025
471 points (90.0% liked)

196

5088 readers
2272 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This has serious 4d chess vibes to it.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's not really that complicated a strategy for a large, well-financed team of full time activists to produce, and really it's within a genre of "leveraging propagandized outrage" shock activism seen more frequently in the past decade from larger advocacy groups. Like those incidents of people vandalizing art with soup, or pouring products on the ground in grocery stores, or painting monuments. It generates outrage, that outrage garauntees wide news coverage, that wide news coverage reaches and activates 100x or 1000x the number of fresh new activists that traditional advocacy acts might, making the media-directed vitreol of millions who will forget and move on within a week fantastically worthwhile. It basically taps into the power of existing propaganda against a movement, using it to ultimately drive interest in the movement. I forget where I was reading an interview with a Greenpeace leader, about how they simply couldn't pass on these tactics because of how effective they are, and they arrived at that conclusion not by prediction but by experience.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure. Anyone who is aligned with the mission will perceive this as an expert move. Similarly, Trump or Musk supporters do the same. Hence, 4D chess.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

From what I gathered reading the interview mentioned (I'll see if I can find it) it was the statistical results they couldn't argue with. There was just as much skepticism and resistance to these tactics internally, until the results couldn't be ignored. Activists are generally concerned about likability and are not analagous to nihilistic billionaire narcissists.

edit - This article by a disruptive politics researcher isn't the interview I'm looking for but it illustrates my ideas here better than I have.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are you referring to The credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack messages

Results indicated that PETA's attack message against abuses at corporate pig farms was effective in eroding the credibility of the corporate food-industry raising animals for consumption. At the same time, PETA's credibility rose overall after participants viewed the PETA attack message.

That seems to align with your argument but not with the topic. The study was focused on corporate pig farm.

The 53 participants were volunteers participating for course credit from upper division communication courses at a large public university located in an area where agribusiness interests loom large.

This is a terrible sample to base any conclusions on.

The results only give clear indication that such advocacy messages intensify already existing negative predispositions

And this indicates it is not a generally useful approach.

The study doesn't measure how long the effect lasts; outrage is fleeting.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

No, but I edited my previous comment to link to an article that's close to what I've been trying to explain.