Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!

This weekly thread will focus on Helping Us Fix Weekly Topics. This Community seems to have a problem. I generally do my best to create open-ended topics that don’t lead the reader to respond in any specific way, all while providing what I think are interesting starters. I’ve purposely picked other moderators that do not think the same as I do on many topics, but have the skill to explain why they feel the way they do. Results of all of this seem to be extremely limited.

If I try and introduce some opinion in a topic for people to pick at (even if I don’t believe it), they tend to get very aggressive and seem to insult moreso than discuss. They focus on moral arguments instead of logical ones and abandon discussions when challenged which sort of defeats the purpose (and goes against the rules) of the entire Community to begin with.

Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):

  • Can we do anything with moderation or rules to help encourage you to respond more?
  • Are there any format changes you’d like to see that may help?
  • Do you ever feel that Lemmy is a more aggressive form of social media and therefore limit your discussion?
  • Does the activist nature of Lemmy help or hurt further adoption?
  • What topics would you like to see covered?
  • Is Lemmy even a good platform for discussion to begin with?
  • Would you like to be a mod and help out?
  • canadaduaneEnglish
    2·
    27 days ago

    Great questions! I hope I can jump in without being too short.

    I wonder if something like debatemap.app or kialo-edu.com would offer a better UX (“user experience”) than Lemmy. I’ve also heard that substack.com has done a good job of attracting high-quality discussion (but I worry, what’s stopping them from traveling down the enshittification path like all the rest?)

    OTOH, I think online discussion itself has some weaknesses that can’t be easily overcome–perhaps in-person, local discussion is (usually/almost always?) better. For example, one study indicates that engaging in political discourse with people online leads to an “uncivil comment rate” of 10%, while a “mixed political / non-political” discourse has a lower uncivil comment rate [1].

    Personally, I find it to be generally true that I need to trust someone in one or more non-controversial areas of life before I take their controversial (to me) opinions seriously. Simple time and familiarity also helps.

    [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.741605/full