See crosspost(s) for more discussion:


This is the first big step in the process to develop comprehensive guidelines for the Fedecan non-profit and the various platforms.

While this will mostly involve converting tacit knowledge and experience into an explicit written form, we expect that this process will inevitably bring up some points of disagreement on the best way to deal with different issues. We ask everyone participating in these discussions to please contribute constructively and in good faith. We encourage you to bring up any concerns or issues you have with the proposed structure and drafted guidelines, so that we can work together to fix them early on. However, in order to keep a productive environment for those discussions, we will be pruning any comment chains that devolve into personal attacks, slap fights, etc.

To help ground your feedback, consider these thought experiments when evaluating a potential guideline:

  • Veil of ignorance: Would it still feel fair to you if you switched places with someone else on the platform (ex. a new user, a moderator, an admin, a member of a vulnerable group, etc.)?
  • Equal Applicability: These rules will be enforced uniformly on everyone. A poorly written rule that helps “your side” today, can easily harm “your side” in the future as circumstances change.

The full guidelines, including governance details like the annual review cycle, can be found on the website: https://fedecan.ca/en/guidelines/

We plan to structure the guidelines as follows:

diagram of the tiers that are described below

Tier 1: Fedecan Rules

Internal Conduct

These rules apply to Fedecan team members (directors, officers, admins, and anyone with elevated access). They set expectations for how team members should act.

Universal Rules

These are the baseline rules that apply to every user on every Fedecan platform. They cover the things that are prohibited by Canadian law (threats, hate speech, CSAM, non-consensual intimate imagery) as well as universal policy rules (privacy/doxxing, harassment, fraud, content that could cause harm, labelling of sensitive content, etc.).

Tier 2: Platform-Specific

Each platform has different functionality and norms, so this is where we can be more specific with the rules. The threadiverse platforms (lemmy.ca, piefed.ca, sh.itjust.works) share similar rules around community creation, moderation, vote manipulation, and content labelling. Pixelfed has its own rules tailored to its platform.

Tier 3: Community-Level Rule Templates

These are optional templates that communities can link to, or use as a starting point for their own rules. The idea is that moderators can point users to a clearly written explanation of why a rule exists, and any relevant exceptions, rather than trying to fit everything into the sidebar. Additionally, if many communities are enforcing a particular rule in the same way, then users will have an easier time understanding and following them.

The post title standards template has been drafted, and we plan to add more as the need arises. I have a few others that are in the works, but they have some overlap with the other sections, so I thought that it would be better to let people discuss first.

  • Otter@lemmy.caOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    “Content that was created with the help of generative AI tools should be labelled.” What if you don’t know for sure, you’re reposting. Can I put “suspected AI?”

    I think with a lot of these guidelines, we are relying on people’s best judgment. We’re not going to be banning people for honest mistakes, and we likely won’t be taking down content when it is unclear if it is AI or not. Users can definitely say that they are not sure when they are the ones that are posting it.

    I can think of two cases where this would be enforced:

    • If a piece of content ends up being dangerous misinformation because it is not labelled as AI-generated. We may remove that content if it can cause harm, instead of waiting for the OP to deal with it.
    • If a user has a pattern of posting AI generated content in order to mislead people, or if the account is an OpenClaw bot altogether, we may ban them.

    Something I’m realizing, for both of these cases they would be breaking some other rule by not labelling the content. Maybe there is a better way to organize that rule.

    Your Rule 6 in the universal rules is going to be hard to enforce. I like that it’s there, but the fediverse is so small right now, that we rely a lot on user reports. I’m not sure how to fix that. I don’t think some of the users here know they’re even being targeted, and then leave before it’s reported.

    This is true, and it will apply to a lot of the rules. If we can’t detect something, and it doesn’t get reported, then it likely won’t get actioned. Hopefully once we have some solid rules in place, we can work on tools to make sure we are taking action consistently and fairly.

    Rule 9 is hard for us Americans. Our own government is doing that. Again, we’re small, so that one probably isn’t a huge issue yet.

    On the bright side, many professional organizations in the US are putting out correct information to counter the disinformation shared by the administration. As we grow in size, we might be able to get more help from experts to identify and deal with misinformation that causes harm. I’m also thinking of putting together another Tier 3 rule template for communities that deal with misinformation often, with resources and guidance on how to approach the gray area topics.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Something I’m realizing, for both of these cases they would be breaking some other rule by not labelling the content. Maybe there is a better way to organize that rule.

      I don’t know how you’d do that, but that sounds great too. When you say labelled, are you saying in the title or in the body? IMO, I think the body is best case because so many AI mentions in the title would get weird and seem like we’re promoting AI.

      Hopefully once we have some solid rules in place, we can work on tools to make sure we are taking action consistently and fairly.

      That’s a great way to look at it and I agree.

      On the bright side, many professional organizations in the US are putting out correct information

      I’ll keep a look out for them as well as I go through the news.

      Thanks for putting a lot of work into this and opening it up for discussion. You’re doing a great job.