Uplifting News

16736 readers

271 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

wolfeh@lemmy.world

Flummoxed@lemmy.today

sga@lemmings.world

sga013@lemmy.world

plantmoretrees@lemm.ee

Aatube@kbin.melroy.org

Aatube@lemmy.world

NickwithaC@lemmy.world

sga@piefed.social

[Meta] Negativity in Comments (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by Aatube@lemmy.world to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Recently, we merry mods have been noticing many-a-comments being in the report queue for perceived negativity (the aim of the community being to provide "a break from the incessant negativity and rage"). What actions should we do about these, if any? Do we need a newsome another-rule for this?

Here's what I think: Some skepticism and scrutiny is always quite needed knowledge—especially against information that's actually untrue/misleading—and any bars I can think of for removing negative comments would apply to reasonable skepticism as well. Thus, the mod team is asking y'all to drop some bars!

Edit

Assorted examples of reported comments

Actually, you’ve missed the mark. It’s not whining about an advancement, it’s legitimate criticism of the US health industry. He’s just saying what we all know to be true which is that regardless of technological improvements, lifesaving care will continue to be ruinously expensive for those that are able to access it and gatekept from many others.

If you have a problem with comments like these undermining celebration of scientific progress, then maybe you should think about the structural political issues that lead people to disillusionment and cynicism rather than labeling people as conspiracy theorists.

You know “big red“ voted for Trump. It’s a cute story, but I hope he gets what he voted for In the end

It’s too bad that curing patients is not a sustainable business model. Even if this did work we would only ever see it developed if you had to take it twice a month for the rest of your life in order to survive.

Edit: sorry, I just noticed this is in Uplifting News. So, let’s be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse and governments will start trying to take care of people.

Nobody said anything about ICE, we’re talking about the military known for bombing weddings in multiple middle eastern countries and then bombing ambulances when they respond.

If you have the money to commit atrocities in a dozen countries at once, you have money to spare.

That’s .world for you; complaining about Reddit while trying to recreate it exactly

It’s very sad to see hype like this. They only had 30 enrolled, this was just a safety study, and while the data looks promising, there is certainly not enough statistical power, which is why there is no approval yet.

Shame on the BBC. If you are going to quote invesigators, you should state that they have paid consultancy deals with UniQure. The same two people were equally excited about a Roche therapy years ago…

But UniCure stock went up 200% today, which is the point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Remove and no ban. If you don’t like removing the ever increasing bad attitudes of humans then stop being a mod

[–] Aatube@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I am once once again asking for your bars—what should be the bar/criteria for removal?

I think we should ask for and respect the decision of the community instead of imposing our own judgements. And of course, we still remove personal attacks (not that your admittedly negative-ish comment counted as one /gen).

[–] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 5 points 4 days ago

Personal attacks are pretty subjective. As are the “uncivil” rules. But I think context really matters. If I told you that I thought you should go kill yourself, which I am not, that would definitely be Something I should be banned for.

Name calling is a good comment to remove, but only if the other party is 100% innocent. I wouldn’t want anyone banned for calling me a cunt. Just let people slap fight.

Blatant racism, sexism, bigotry, those get removed, multiples are a ban, but you can’t take the reported reason as fact.

Modding is rough, I get it. Do less modding. We won’t burn it down.

[–] BCOVertigo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Sure, here's an opinion.

Banning is permanent and shouldn't be first or immediate response. Repeat offenders that cross some quality or quanity threshhold may deserve that, but you should adopt power rangers rules and seek proportional responses, and only escalate as a response where possible.

Bans should be transparent, contestable, and consistent in their application. However fair or unfair the rules you settle on, the perception of that consistency and impartiality influences the communitiea reaction. Too gentle and your community's purpose blurs into something unintended, too harsh and your users will flee for greener pastures.

Asking instead of dictating is the right approach in my opinion so I think you're aimed in a good direction.

Three strikes is where I would start, but maybe some strikes count for more than others? This is a hard problem and the answer will change over time. In cases where you can't be consistent though, you must be transparent to salvage the trust you're eroding.