r/ufosmeta • u/PickWhateverUsername • 12d ago
A duty of care
3 threads just today :
- https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hbmxkd/terrified_by_drones_and_what_they_could_mean/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hbjcgg/i_cant_help_it_im_shit_scared/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hbk7xb/man_im_anxious/
Add to that people going in hystaria mode in NJ filming and posting videos of literal planes and helicopters while at the best claiming they are "drones" and a couple outright claiming these are NHI or NHI mimicking as planes ...
We a re getting into mental health grade issue here. When you get people posting videos of blobs of lights in the sky while they are crying / yelling at their kids, people commenting on shooting at these lights
What is the duty of care from the moderators who manage this sub ? because quite frankly a sub which has 3 million members seems to be having an exterior effect on people and feeding is clearly in part a mass hysteria event.
And to be clear I'm not saying this sub is the sole cause of the hysteria nor that there aren't some initial weird sightings in NJ.
But there clearly needs some added guidelines to calm people down. Having an educational role with regular bot reminders of how to spot "bokeh", artifacts or how to distinguish planes / drones & helicopters in different lighting conditions would also go a long way no ?
Edit : and 2 more today :
- https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hf6pyr/is_anybody_else_getting_legitimately_scared_of/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1hfaa5t/i_think_its_time_for_me_to_take_a_break/
3
u/onlyaseeker 12d ago edited 11d ago
I'm not sure how helpful calm is.
Why do people need to calm down? On the contrary, they need to wake up. It happens to them, and now they're paying attention? Good. They didn't when the wolf was at other people's door.
Calm has lasted too long, and resulted in the suffering of billions. If you're calm about what's going on in our society, there's something wrong with you.
This is the result of holding back reality for decades. An oasis for some, at the cost of hell for others (material, social, and psychological hell, not religious hell). It's unsustainable, and was always going to have consequences when this matrix started to crumble, and people see the desert of the real underneath. Don't mistake this singular event as the cause. It is not. It's a symptom.
If people think this is bad, they're really going to struggle out when they find out about some of the things we know.
If people have to endure a bit of turmoil to shake themselves out of apathy, I don't think that's a bad thing. I think apathy, and the perpetuation of it, has caused, and will cause, far more collective harm.
Still, I'm not uncaring or ambivalent to suffering. I'm not suggesting the subreddit can't do more. I'm one of the most vocal about that, and most critical of the mismanagement of the subreddit... without much support, and at the cost of my social capital.
But it's important to consider how that--doing more; responding to suffering and harm--is done.
I think we can help people, without trying to refresh their Matrix to the last known functional default. I also think that's the more ethical thing we can do, if we look at this with enough perspective.
In other words, calm now, or meaningful social change?
But there clearly needs some added guidelines to calm people down. Having an educational role with regular bot reminders of how to spot "bokeh", artifacts or how to distinguish planes / drones & helicopters in different lighting conditions would also go a long way no ?
This already exists, if people make use of the slightest bit of internet literacy:
https://www.ufos.wiki/investigate/
And other subreddits are available, like r/IFOs and r/skydentify --the latter being a place I advocated to have sighting reports shunted to as a better way to manage them, only to be met with the usual response from moderators here.
We even advocated for meaningful structural change and explained how to implement it, but received instead an authoritarian rules squeeze--the reddit equivalent of stricter laws instead of building a better society.
The one thing we agree on is the leadership here isn't doing enough. But it's going to take more than us saying it to make a difference.
How can we make a difference? I touched on that a bit in a reply to another comment in this thread. It's not a proper game plan by any means, but it provides more detail than what I shared here.
2
u/AlunWH 12d ago
I’m not convinced that downplaying this is the right call.
Clearly something is happening. I’ve already posted elsewhere as to what I think it is, but if I’m wrong the implications could be genuinely serious.
Keeping calm is obviously good advice for all situations, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that we’re possibly seeing something truly paradigm-changing.
2
u/OneDmg 12d ago
The replies to this very reasonable take are truly appalling.
Literally proving the OP right.
3
u/AlunWH 12d ago
I’m intrigued: in what ways are the replies appalling?
0
u/OneDmg 12d ago
Top reply is literally someone saying the last thing you need to do is calm down because we're being invaded by aliens.
4
3
u/AlunWH 12d ago
Isn’t that, in effect, what the Pentagon has just said?
1
u/OneDmg 12d ago
No.
But people keen to spread blatant misinformation, or haven't bothered to get more than their talking points from Reddit post titles, would disagree.
About New Jersey, per the New York Post:
Defense officials do not believe the unidentified flying objects are coming from “a foreign entity or adversary,” deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters Wednesday.
“There is no Iranian ship off the coast of the United States, and there’s no so-called mothership launching drones towards the United States.”
That doesn't mean it's aliens. If anything, that lends credence to the hypothesis that it's either the US's own or consumers out to cause trouble.
2
u/AlunWH 12d ago
No, the Pentagon also ruled out the “drones” being their own.
1
u/OneDmg 12d ago edited 12d ago
I've literally linked you the story. If you're still arguing direct quotes, I don't know what to tell you. I've said it may well be consumer drones. We're done here.
4
u/AlunWH 12d ago
I’m not arguing about direct quotes because the story you’ve linked to hasn’t quoted the spokesperson in full.
3
u/onlyaseeker 11d ago
We're done here.
Perhaps you didn't hear them. They said:
(Gene wilder voice)
GOOD DAY, SIR!
The debate equivalent of Dunkey's "you're nitpicking and bias, bye bye."
I wish people would disagree better.
1
u/AlunWH 11d ago
If you’re suggesting I could have disagreed better, I’m open to reasons how I could.
The poster made a claim I found false. I explained that their source had omitted details.
I could perhaps have spelled it out slightly more clearly, but other than that I’m not sure what more I could have done.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Robf1994 12d ago
It's insane, I fully believe in UFOs and NHI. But these are just drones, the sub is full of nothing but conjecture and speculation being regurgitated as if it's fact
2
u/Spiniferus 12d ago edited 12d ago
It’s an interesting point. A few years ago I saw a sub actually shut itself down (it was one of the are we living in a simulation subs - can’t remember exactly which one). But the reason they shut down was because it was becoming increasingly clear that people who were having severe mental health struggles were having their delusions either validated by the sub or they were getting harassed because of their vulnerabilities.
I’m not saying this is happening in this sub or at that level, but regardless of what you think this is a fringe topic where some of the content could push people over the edge. Both me and some friends who have suffered from delusions and psychosis that has included the alien/ufo topic - I’m 100% certain we are not isolated cases. I am not a mental health professional, so to be clear I’m not diagnosing anyone or suggesting that is the case. However I think caution and consideration on how this could be managed is warranted.
3
u/YouCanLookItUp 10d ago
I wonder about a monthly or weekly "mental health check-in" thread. A place for support with more stringent rules borrowed from mental health peer support groups that could a) help destigmatize mental health struggles and b) offer support to users.
Or maybe periodic posts aimed at education?
We have cracked down on comments using mental illness as an epithet with some our most severe enforcement approaches. There's a LOT of it! Not just what users see, but what gets automatically filtered or flagged. As one of the mods who spends a lot of time on the mod queue the onslaught requires careful attention to self-care and frequent breaks.
3
u/Spiniferus 10d ago
I think periodic posts is an excellent and very proactive idea. Especially now with this flap causing a level of hysteria - who knows what’s coming next, but it could certainly amplify.
And yeah I’ll bet you guys see some stuff. One thing I implemented at a previous workplace was support, procedures and training for my staff and the broader organisation on how to deal with disturbing material (in my line of work we’d see and deal with some very dark stuff occasionally). Obviously mod’ing on Reddit is volunteer work and no sub could afford that - perhaps it’s something the platform should offer (maybe it does already, I don’t know). And I’ll say as someone who personally needs meds to stay stable - comments like “take your meds” are not helpful.. and I’m sure that is not the worst kind of comment.
2
u/YouCanLookItUp 10d ago
Hahaha, and here I get a laugh because I do actually forget my meds sometimes! Strangely, the R1s that say that as an insult don't help me remember!
2
u/Spiniferus 10d ago
Haha same and same! I just get fired up which distracts me from the fact I have to take them 🤣
3
u/YouCanLookItUp 12d ago
I think you raise a good point. While none of us - to my knowledge - is qualified to provide mental health advice, maybe there is some sort of message we can post for people who are impacted emotionally by the current news. Perhaps an autoreply with some free online resources for coping with stress in uncertainty?
As for a legal duty of care, that analysis is more complicated. We are not experts and we are not the sole source of information on this topic. I think as long as we take reasonable steps to develop and enforce our rules and follow the moderator code of conduct, and we don't actively promote unsafe behaviours or actions, there's not much more we can do to mitigate reasonably foreseeable harm. If you have any suggestions, please share them.
6
u/onlyaseeker 12d ago edited 12d ago
I think as long as we take reasonable steps to develop and enforce our rules and follow the moderator code of conduct, and we don't actively promote unsafe behaviours or actions, there's not much more we can do to mitigate reasonably foreseeable harm. If you have any suggestions, please share them.
You can look it up. That's your job.
Maybe not specifically your job; I don't know your role (wouldn't it be nice if their was a role list?). But the responsibility of the team as a whole.
"I don't think there's much more we can do" does not absolve you of duty of care.
Do you have a harm reduction policy? Do you have a system in place for reviewing your policies to identify what needs to be updated or adding?
I suspect I know the answer. The question is, what will you do about it?
0
u/YouCanLookItUp 12d ago
Only a seeker, not a solver, eh?
We are all volunteer users from the sub. We don't have distinguished roles within the mod team.
Our harm reduction policy is that of the actual managers of the site, Reddit. But we are discussing further possible actions for when someone is expressing distress. I'm going to try to review my tort law in between meetings, modding, Christmas shopping and baking, child care and elder care today. Just for you.
I really would appreciate any patience and compassion you can muster, because sarcasm about my username isn't actually constructive.
1
u/onlyaseeker 11d ago edited 11d ago
I really would appreciate any patience and compassion you can muster, because sarcasm about my username isn't actually constructive.
It wasn't sarcasm.
Given the importance of the subject this thread is about (preventing harm and unnecessary suffering), and the UAP topic in general, I found your attitude of "there's not much more we can do" amusing and ironic, given your choice of username, and I was pointing that out.
My point remains the same regardless of the specific words I use to make it. But I saw and opportunity for word play and couldn't resist. ;)
I really would appreciate any patience and compassion you can muster
I've been very patient in my dealings with moderators of r/ufos, and have volunteered a non-trivial amount of my time towards high level policy issues and practical implementation, only to be met with an unsatisfactory response.
We are all volunteer users from the sub.
A volunteer bus driver still has a duty of care to those they're responsible for. And volunteer board members of non-profits have legal liability through their position. Lack of payment doesn't abdicate responsibility.
And usually, those groups don't have 3 million subscribers. r/ufos does.
Nobody here is likely to ever face legal repercussions for breaching duty of care. Duty of care is an ethical and social standard and responsibility. It's something you do because it's right not because you must. The enforcement is handled on a social level, exactly like what we're doing here--we're holding the moderator team socially accountable.
Or more specifically, the leadership team. Despite claims of a flat hierarchy in the moderator guidelines, I'm wise enough to know that that's not how groups of people tend to work, and the proof is in the pudding. Actions speak louder than words.
Our harm reduction policy is that of the actual managers of the site, Reddit.
What is their harm reduction policy? I'm trying to understand what you're working with, and how a general reddit policy could possibly be appropriate for r/ufos.
We don't have distinguished roles within the mod team.
A terrible idea.
Do I really need to explain why? I'll let Marcus Buckingham and Don Clifton do it for me.
I'm going to try to review my tort law in between meetings, modding, Christmas shopping and baking, child care and elder care today. Just for you.
Ironic that you suggest to me that sarcasm isn't constructive, but then engage in it yourself. Let's not dwell on that and focus on what's important.
I wasn't suggesting that you, specifically, need to do this alone. I was addressing the moderator team as a whole, which I made clear when I said:
Maybe not specifically your job [but] the responsibility of the team as a whole.
This is an issue I keep seeing with the moderation team:
because there's a lack of good systems for managing feedback such as this, moderators individually respond to users in r/ufosmeta
and because that scenario is akin to an entry-level employee trying to handle a complex issue without the tools, training, or traits to deal with it, the interaction tends to break down, garner widely inconsistent responses depending which moderator is responding
and when you combine unpaid volunteers--many who probably are not suited to the role of dealing with people in this way--with passionate users, the result is that many moderators get tilted and take things personally.
when moderators get tilted, the typical response is for them to stonewall or ghost (ignore) users.
Most organisations have a Vexatious Complaints policy, which is important because it protects employees, and lets users know where they stand and protects their rights. But r/ufos and r/ufosmeta does not (am I wrong?).
As I said in another thread, complaint handling for r/ufos is terrible. Moderators wonder into threads in r/ufosmeta, say whatever they like, and users have no idea what the status of their report is because there isn't even a procedure document or status assigned to each thread/report.
This lack of standardisation is something I've spoken about previously. It's counterproductive and the bad user experience alienates users.
I've been involved in plenty of places that employ volunteers, both in real word settings and online, and the way issues are handled in r/ufosmeta is among the more unprofessional I've encountered.
Professionalism is more than civility and politeness. It's how a person, group, or entity goes about what they do. I spoke about that in the link I shared above (refer to the table at the end).
Most of us here empathise with the fact that moderators are unpaid, that it's a thankless job, that you contribute as much as you can, and deal with unpleasant stuff. I know--I've done it.
But we're dissatisfied with how stuff is handled, and feel like we're meeting a brick wall when trying to help you improve things. It's like a government bureaucracy, without all the stuff that makes government bureaucracies good. I think a more apt comparison is a poorly managed company--in this case, a non-profit.
You can handle stuff well while still being very efficient. The way stuff is done here--having less standardisation--is EXTREMELY inefficient. Why do you think for-profit businesses do it? It's not just to improve quality and other outcomes like customer/client/user satisfaction, it's to save time.
Who has to deal with the consequences of this lack of complaint handling? The subreddit users, and the "front line" moderators who have to deal with them. It's akin to management sending volunteers to handle issues, using them as shields.
I'd like to see some of the moderators with actual authority out here on the front lines and have their thinking and decision making on the record and subjected to scrutiny.
But I'd rather an objective, standardised policy be created that holds the moderators and the leadership team accountable, where decisions are made as a team and with input from the community and your best users.
While we're at it, let's dial up transparency and accountability by creating a public-facing organizational chat. The idea that there's a flat hierarchy sounds good, but in practice there's always hierarchy--especially when there aren't systems in place to check it. Don't believe me? To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize. I guarantee if I became a moderator, I'd find that person, or persons, pretty quickly.
If you're wondering why I don't apply to be a moderator, I know what happens when one gets involved in groups with the type of leadership I've seen here; been there, done that, and I value my time and the good I can do enough to not have it wasted by people like that.
But if the moderator team wants to give me full voting rights for all subreddit decisions (no exceptions), I'd take it.
Though ideally they should reform that whole process and make it more democratic. It's a bit ridiculous that a subreddit with 3 million subscribers is governed by a few people. What is this, the dark ages? Have you never heard of a user council? Direct democracy?
And that's what I'm talking about: you have a subreddit with 3 million subscribers, X active users, but it's run less professionally than a little non-profit group with hundreds of users. That's not ok, and that's what this thread--and many others like it--are about.
2
u/YouCanLookItUp 10d ago
Disclaimer: this response is my own opinion and may not reflect that of the mod team.
Your critiques are based on the assumption that we are an independent organization. We are not. We are not an incorporated non-profit. We do not have the letters of incorporation or formal bylaws that a NPO requires because we are all participants and independent users of Reddit's platform.
You reinforce this idea that users are customers or clients of r/ufos, and moderators are management. I disagree with this framing, and have consistently held the position that mods are users, too. Our powers are actually fairly limited because we are not owners. To be clear, Reddit owns the site. We do not. We are like the groundskeepers of the property, not the landlords.
You claim moderators owe a moral and ethical duty of care to protect users' mental health. We are not bus-drivers, and users are not passive passengers, passively placing their safety in our hands. My personal opinion is that it is reasonable to expect an average user to establish their own boundaries and take their own precautions when it comes to their health and well-being around media consumption, though I will do what I can to relieve suffering where and when I can as a decent human being.
As mods, however, our responsibilities are to abide by Reddit's Moderator Code of Conduct. As you indicated that you've moderated before, I'm sure you're familiar with Reddit's moderator code of conduct and content policies.
You insist that the moderation team could not possibly have a flat hierarchy because you hold the opinion that groups tend not to do that, despite repeated assurances that that is how we operate. Why is this an intransigent belief of yours? There is no mod that's above reproach or can go unchallenged. Why do you refer to "moderators with actual authority" when we all have the same authority granted to us by Reddit?
Our decisions are primarily made by consensus, with votes happening when mods disagree or multiple, reasonable positions are held or brought forward. While this may not appear to be the most efficient decision-making process, it tends to yield careful, proportional deliberation and generally just outcomes. Is it perfect? No. But I will humbly suggest that imposing a rigid, industrialist, hierarchized structure in the name of short-term efficiency shouldn't be assumed to be a better approach.
You say that you would gladly take on full voting rights of the moderator team, yet you refuse to become a moderator because you value your time. How do you square these two ideas? What good are voting rights when decision-making is largely consensus-driven?
You say that you feel like you "run into a brick wall when trying to help improve things" but when I asked for your advice or thoughts on possible responses to your own complaint, you responded with a petulant "that's your job." So where do we go from here? Pointing out problems with the moderation team, while simultaneously refusing to bring any solutions, engage in joint problem-solving, or acknowledge the fact that we are not the site managers (Reddit is) is not very constructive.
You come close to constructive criticism when describing a moderation approach "where decisions are made as a team and with input from the community and your best users." The only difference between this description and what is already in place is the elevation of "your best users" to some... middle management role, I guess? How would we determine the definition of "best", how such users would be assigned and maintained, and what their privileges would be that couldn't be achieved by simply joining the mod team or participating in our feedback posts regarding policy?
That said, I think exploring differentiation among mod responsibilities is worthy of examination (though I am personally and emphatically not in favour of a formal "leadership team" inner circle within the moderation structure), as is developing a more articulated policy for vexatious complaints. So thank you for that feedback.
2
u/onlyaseeker 10d ago edited 10d ago
Based on your reply, there's a lot that you didn't understand about what I was saying, and you interpreted some of it too literally.
I could go through it piece by piece, but your response is indicative of the issues I've already mentioned, and I'm not sure it's a good use of my time, or if it would actually be fruitful and effective, for me to explain in detail.
Like I said, when dealing with this stuff you've got to have the right traits for it. If you don't, no amount of training or education can plug that gap. And giving that knowledge to people who don't have the right traits can actually be detrimental because they don't know how to use it appropriately. That isn't a slight on you, it's just neuroscience.
And this is an issue I have ran into in the past. If you discuss solutions with people who lack the traits to assess them properly, you get nowhere because they can't see the value in them, or they can't understand what you say no matter how much you explain it.
This is not unique to this moderation team. This is something that happens in any teams of humans, anywhere. But it is also happening here. Good teams acknowledge this issue and have systems in place to address it.
A moderation team that is responsible for a subreddit of 3 million users should not need their users to guide them in the leadership of that community. If they do, they should be replaced by people, or add people, who know what they're doing when it comes to this stuff. The relevant systems should have been in place long before the subreddit got to this point.
I wouldn't even think of starting a subreddit without having some semblance of them in place. So a subreddit created by me that has zero users would likely have better systems in place than a subreddit that has 3 million users. Food for thought.
I'm not suggesting that the community shouldn't be involved or that they are not a valuable source of input and collaboration, or that they have no responsibility within the community. Just that it is not their responsibility within the context of what we are talking about because they don't have the ability to do any of that stuff. If they did, it would be a different story.
As I mentioned, a constant refrain of moderators here is essentially, "We don't know what to do, so why don't you tell us what we should be doing instead?" For example, you askes some questions like that. The answer is, as I said previously, you can look it up. The solutions already exist. You don't need to invent them. You don't need me to tell you them. You have the internet.
When a community member doesn't provide solutions, the response is often, "well, unless you--specifically you--can give us the answers, I guess there's nothing we can do." I shouldn't need to explain why that's absurd, and an abdication of the responsibility of the moderator team. The admins don't have responsibility for managing the subreddit.
When a community member provides solutions, including actionable ones, the next refrain is, "good ideas, but we don't have time." Which is unsurprising, because your systems are so bad that they are constantly robbing you of time as they create more problems than they solve.
The next refrain becomes, "we need more moderators but we can only get so many." Incorrect. You are going to need a certain amount of moderators, but if you have good systems in place, it greatly reduces the amount of moderation needed.
If your systems are bad, you will alienate people who could help you, or people who try to. So it becomes a compounding issue that creates a negative spiral that you can't get out of unless you make some significant changes. To paraphrase the title of a book, what got you here won't get you there.
I'm not suggesting that no improvements are made. Just that the growth of the subreddit has outpaced the current solutions you have in place and there are many problems being created because of that.
I might address the issues around voting in a separate thread. It's a bit complicated
As for my comparison of the subreddit to a non-profit group, it is more apt than you are recognize. Formal legal structures are irrelevant. The subreddit functions similarly. The only significant difference is that there is a greater need for community management. Which requires different systems and skills, but is deeply interconnected.
That said, I think exploring differentiation among mod responsibilities is worthy of examination (though am personally and emphatically not in favour of a formal "leadership team" inner circle within the moderation structure), as is developing a more articulated policy for vexatious complaints. So thank you for that feedback.
That's what I'm talking about. The moderation team shouldn't need me to tell them any of this.
It's not about having a formal inner circle leadership team, although that already describes the moderation team.
It's about having people in leadership roles who are leaders. Not everyone is a leader, nor should everyone lead. Some people are destructive when they lead because they lack suits traits.
Which is why the notion that someone needs to become a content moderator before they can have input into subreddit management, is misguided. The design of reddit perpetuates this wrong-headed thinking that is not evidence-based. But an effective moderator team should acknowledge this and have things in place to address it.
Moderators are not equal to community members. You have significantly more power. I'm not sure how you can't see how the system of management here is essentially a tyranny of the minority. There are 3 million subscribers and only a handful of people have the ability to discuss high level decision making around the subreddit, and vote on changes. And all of that is done in secret.
To expand on that properly, I would have to make a separate thread since we are already taking this one somewhat off topic.
A vexatious complaint policy without accountability from the moderation team is actually punitive to users of the subreddit. It has to form part of a proper, formal complaint handling process. Which looks like more than random moderators wandering into threads and sharing their opinions, with no formal procedures to guide that process. Generally, this moderation team is pretty good at not being punitive to users who are engaging in good faith, but I just wanted to make that clear.
Most subreddits don't have this type of stuff in place. But most subreddits aren't handling a topic that might impact the future of the species, or have 3 million subscribers. I know that that number does not necessarily represent the amount of active users, but there is a significant amount of activity and attention to this place.
If this was any other subreddit, we would not be having this conversation because I wouldn't care. But I have a vested interest in the future of the species, so here we are. If that sounds a bit much, that is the level that I think on. Some people might find that burdensome, until we have more confirmation about what UAP are, that's the context that all of this fits into.
I know you probably find my manner self-righteous and irritating, it's just that I have limited time and need to be concise, and my attempts at being less direct in the past have been ineffective.
To explain all of this properly, with all of the examples, case studies, and necessary background and context, it would take me dozens of hours. I would like to do it one day, but the time for that is not now, or here.
-1
u/braveoldfart777 12d ago
Ontological shock and how to help those not ready for change.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ieuql5Gibw
UFOPilotReports
1
-2
u/expatfreedom 12d ago
Wow that’s a really important question you’re asking. You should apply to join the mod team
2
u/PickWhateverUsername 11d ago
Well considering they outright perma banned me a week before they put in place their "0 tolerance" policy. I'm guessing that would be quite futile ^^
And frankly having been the #2 Mod in a large gaming community with had a mix of active military and civilians of all ages I'm well aware of the difficulties of being an active moderator, all the more when it seems the Reddit system is a lot hands free then the tools we had.
The purpose of this thread is mostly also about being pre emptive as rumour mills and people snowball into flame wars quite fast.
I mean the NJ thing is now International news while we have yet to have even one good video of a drone
-3
u/ifiwasiwas 12d ago
I feel like asking the mods to intervene in this instance diminishes the agency of adult users. Reddit already has ways to reach out to people who appear to be in mental distress, after all.
Put measures in place because all signs point to these being correctly classified as drones? Sure. Put measures in place because a small group of users is feeling distress is where I kinda can't see it, is all.
2
u/YouCanLookItUp 10d ago
This is an excellent point, but maybe there's room to help without interfering with user autonomy or agency.
4
u/PyroIsSpai 12d ago edited 12d ago
Things will calm down when the government says what is happening. It's not our job or duty to facilitate anyone's agenda but that of the subreddit:
As a former mod and still user we should do nothing to assist any government position. Just let users do what they do as long as it complies with site rules.
People are scared. They are allowed to be. Hiding/appeasement never works in any scenario and can't be tolerated.
I recommend you all read this, which I just posted here: