This is ridiculous fear-mongering, u/Graphenium is being intentionally misleading.
It's always been the policy for politics to be opt-in, when browsing via communities.win. In fact, until two weeks ago, none of the sites with their own domains were included on the front page at all.
Two weeks ago, we added the three "topics" of Politics, NSFW, and Other for the front page (which are toggles that users can enable or disable, and customize what they want to see on the front page). By default, users have the Politics topic disabled.
This was the first time any of the sites with standalone domains were featured on the front page, and we were clear that politically focused communities would be tagged as political communities.
The user also linked to an out of context comment (it didn't include the comment that it was in response to, making it look like it was in response to the post --- it wasn't, it was in response to an entirely different user's comment)
Ultimately - I don't think anyone should have an issue with us tagging communities that one could argue are political as politics. What could be debated is whether or not we should hide politics for default. It's always been our vision for politics to be opt-in, and that's unlikely to change without first trialing it on a bigger scale.
I don't post much here b/c it's gone from politics to 95% crazy fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. I actually agree with the frustration Ragnar_Danneskjold is expressing in his post. It's hard to have reasonable discussions or convince the unconvinced when the guy behind you is REEEEING just as loud as the people you oppose.
KiA2, now that I look at the front page, isn't necessarily as political (although we have a wide definition of politics to include social issues).
I would recommend considering us political, since we're quite involved in culture war stuff. Almost a political meta, as the culture war involves a lot of non-political fields (like gaming) becoming intentionally politicized.
While you're around: any word on allowing user-created communities? I have not seen any moderator-tier failures so far on the .win network, but I believe it is inevitable to occur and reliable countermeasures should be made.
This is ridiculous fear-mongering, u/Graphenium is being intentionally misleading.
It's always been the policy for politics to be opt-in, when browsing via communities.win. In fact, until two weeks ago, none of the sites with their own domains were included on the front page at all.
Two weeks ago, we added the three "topics" of Politics, NSFW, and Other for the front page (which are toggles that users can enable or disable, and customize what they want to see on the front page). By default, users have the Politics topic disabled.
This was the first time any of the sites with standalone domains were featured on the front page, and we were clear that politically focused communities would be tagged as political communities.
https://communities.win/c/Changelogs/p/12hl5DX8m9/x/c/4DyNWLbyhHQ
This policy has not been at all swayed by any users, we have remained consistent on it.
Politics is opt-in.
We are an easily spooked bunch due to having been hunted across the internet.
I just wanted to
play vidya gamesmove stair muffinsGaMeRgAtE!!!! *diarrhea intensifies*
The user also linked to an out of context comment (it didn't include the comment that it was in response to, making it look like it was in response to the post --- it wasn't, it was in response to an entirely different user's comment)
Here's the more important conversation from that post: https://communities.win/c/Meta/p/12i443KZIx/x/c/4Dzdt0gYjZu
Ultimately - I don't think anyone should have an issue with us tagging communities that one could argue are political as politics. What could be debated is whether or not we should hide politics for default. It's always been our vision for politics to be opt-in, and that's unlikely to change without first trialing it on a bigger scale.
I wasn’t trying to be “misleading”, I was linking to the comment that mentioned KiA.
How are either of these subs “politics”? One is about conspiracy theories the other about shitty “journalism”
Kia is like 95% politics.
I don't post much here b/c it's gone from politics to 95% crazy fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. I actually agree with the frustration Ragnar_Danneskjold is expressing in his post. It's hard to have reasonable discussions or convince the unconvinced when the guy behind you is REEEEING just as loud as the people you oppose.
I'll refer to our conversation on conspiracies.win about that community: https://communities.win/p/12i443Lwsp/x/c/4Dzdt5HZ6Qu
KiA2, now that I look at the front page, isn't necessarily as political (although we have a wide definition of politics to include social issues).
I like this community, and I like seeing it on my all feed, despite having the politics topic disabled. However it does violate the vision.
As I've said, we'll be pushing the home feed - users should customize their experience by subscribing to communities.
I would recommend considering us political, since we're quite involved in culture war stuff. Almost a political meta, as the culture war involves a lot of non-political fields (like gaming) becoming intentionally politicized.
While you're around: any word on allowing user-created communities? I have not seen any moderator-tier failures so far on the .win network, but I believe it is inevitable to occur and reliable countermeasures should be made.
You were made by a political group wanting somewhere to discuss their ideas. Without them, or rather us, this site wouldn't be what it is today.
Own it.
Oh hey man, I didn't know you hung around here.