This was in Lemmy world politics.

  • @LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    113 days ago

    In theory this sounds good but in practice it has problems. First, not everyone agrees on what constitutes bad faith interactions, as that’s a poorly defined term to begin with. So first you’d have to build consensus around that. Secondly, most definitions are going to revolve around the user’s state of mind, which isn’t possible to know and in my experience is often misunderstood due to the sometimes heated nature of online discourse.

    So how is it fairly enforced? If this question can be answered to my satisfaction, then i agree. But I don’t think it can be. Therefore the best approach is to build rules and examples of bad behavior that are objectively verifiable. If these are comprehensive enough then the trolling and bad faith issues will be solved but we won’t have people getting banned for being bad at spelling or other BS you see on this com.

    • @mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      112 days ago

      not everyone agrees

      As opposed to when?

      Trying to define shitty human behavior objectively is a fool’s errand. People can be bastards beyond defense, in perfectly G-rated language. Forums with a mile-long list of nitpicky little rules are miserable compared to any straightforward version of ‘don’t be an asshole without a good reason.’