Uh huh, and here’s what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:
Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.
“Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.
You’re not arguing I’m good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you’re willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.
@otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn’t just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.
That constitutes deliberate misinformation.
If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of “civility” for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.
We had a chance to discuss this post and what we can do differently in the future. You raised some good points in your communication with us, and I’ve copied it in to our notes for future guidelines / recommended community rules. Thank you for reaching out, we’re keeping the comments approved.
So that rule was mainly intended for the election season. It was relatively easy during that period for us to check and verify election related information, and there was an increased risk from harmful information being posted right before people went to vote.
The initial removal of the rule from the sidebar was a mistake on my part from when I updated the sidebar the other day to add the new communities people made. I edit the sidebar elsewhere and copy it in, and didn’t grab the latest version of the sidebar like I should have.
However, since we’re planning to work on the updated guidelines and recommended community rules sometime soon (+ the posts to collect feedback), we might just leave it as is and deal with things in a case by case basic till then. I’m estimating that we will be able to get that done in late August / early fall, based on what our schedules look like.
Thank you for checking! I appreciate when users keep an eye on things and give feedback, since it helps us catch issues and improve our processes
Thanks for responding and for taking a thoughtful approach with this. I would very much like the fediverse to eventually replace corporate social media, so it’s good to see folks working on governance and policy with an eye to the future. And obviously I get that this can take time, especially when people are doing so on a volunteer basis.
I’d suggest, though, asking community members for suggestions & feedback early in the process, and also to seek out existing work on the topic of online community safety & governance, especially by women, BIPOC and queer folks, if you haven’t already.
When I had looked through the mod log recently, there was also a case where a post from the Toronto Sun (to be clear, fuck the Toronto Sun) had been taken down with the reason being something like “American owned propaganda newspaper” and then reinstated. There at least need to be some clear guidelines around what can be posted, it can’t just be completely made up on the fly.
Don’t feel obliged to respond to this message, I just wanted to communicate these things to you. Thanks again
Why are you continuing to cite an article that you yourself said is outdated, and are stating I am operating in bad faith by citing the conclusion of the article?
Yeah, that was in June, they hadn’t updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn’t been announced either
If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:
I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.
That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.
From your source. Again.
Uh huh, and here’s what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:
You’re not arguing I’m good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you’re willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.
@otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn’t just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.
That constitutes deliberate misinformation.
If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of “civility” for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.
Hi, we’re discussing this one with the other admins and someone will get back to you soon. I’ve reapproved the comments in the meantime.
Appreciate the update, thanks
Hi patatas,
We had a chance to discuss this post and what we can do differently in the future. You raised some good points in your communication with us, and I’ve copied it in to our notes for future guidelines / recommended community rules. Thank you for reaching out, we’re keeping the comments approved.
That is fantastic to hear! Thanks.
Quick question sorry: did rule 2 get removed from the sidebar? I don’t see it anymore
So that rule was mainly intended for the election season. It was relatively easy during that period for us to check and verify election related information, and there was an increased risk from harmful information being posted right before people went to vote.
The initial removal of the rule from the sidebar was a mistake on my part from when I updated the sidebar the other day to add the new communities people made. I edit the sidebar elsewhere and copy it in, and didn’t grab the latest version of the sidebar like I should have.
However, since we’re planning to work on the updated guidelines and recommended community rules sometime soon (+ the posts to collect feedback), we might just leave it as is and deal with things in a case by case basic till then. I’m estimating that we will be able to get that done in late August / early fall, based on what our schedules look like.
Thank you for checking! I appreciate when users keep an eye on things and give feedback, since it helps us catch issues and improve our processes
Thanks for responding and for taking a thoughtful approach with this. I would very much like the fediverse to eventually replace corporate social media, so it’s good to see folks working on governance and policy with an eye to the future. And obviously I get that this can take time, especially when people are doing so on a volunteer basis.
I’d suggest, though, asking community members for suggestions & feedback early in the process, and also to seek out existing work on the topic of online community safety & governance, especially by women, BIPOC and queer folks, if you haven’t already.
When I had looked through the mod log recently, there was also a case where a post from the Toronto Sun (to be clear, fuck the Toronto Sun) had been taken down with the reason being something like “American owned propaganda newspaper” and then reinstated. There at least need to be some clear guidelines around what can be posted, it can’t just be completely made up on the fly.
Don’t feel obliged to respond to this message, I just wanted to communicate these things to you. Thanks again
Why are you continuing to cite an article that you yourself said is outdated, and are stating I am operating in bad faith by citing the conclusion of the article?
https://lemmy.ca/post/48500865/17947360
If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:
I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.
That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.
@otter@lemmy.ca if it is “uncivil” to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?