this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
164 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9448 readers
1344 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Elections Canada has released this resource with some common bits of false or misleading content about elections on social media: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=dis&document=index&lang=e

~~We plan on pinning this resource, and we are proposing the following rules:~~

edit: Thank you for the feedback everyone, these adjusted rules will be enforced:

  • Posts or comments with inaccurate or misleading information from this list will be removed, and users are encouraged to report them
  • Repeatedly posting such content will result in a ban from the community until April 28 (at a minimum)

So far we haven't noticed any serious issues, but we want to get ahead of anything that might come up

You can also see these guides by the Government of Canada:

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Can we add a rule about not tolerating insults? Some users in this community have a really toxic attitude. This shouldn't be tolerated.

It's ok to disagree with someone and have an argument and debate, but it shouldn't immediately fall into gratuitous insults when someone has a different viewpoint than yours.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

That falls upon the Instance Rule #2: Be Civil, which applies to this entire instance

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

I think we can find a way to work that in to the updated rules for the community. I'll copy this into our notes for where we're working on those

[–] AwkwardBroccolli@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think we also need to remove brigading posts. I am new to lemmy so not sure how much brigading happens here.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

That's fair, can you link some of the posts? You can also DM me, or @admin@lemmy.ca

There isn't much brigading since it gets dealt with, but it's not impossible

[–] AwkwardBroccolli@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am new here. I ma basing my comment on observations I have seen in reddit. Please take my advice with the skepticism it requires as I don't understand how moderation in lemmy works.

My observations based on moderating subreddits have been to institute blanket bans on people who are active on extreme right subreddits and extreme left subreddits. This helps in clearing the brigading and steers conversations towards neutrality.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We might need that in the future, but for now I think we have enough moderators to users to deal with brigading and bad faith arguments when it happens. So far users have been excellent about reporting it to us

I also don't love doing blanket bans based on participation alone. Sometimes people comment on content to call it out, and without following the thread carefully and being familiar with the topic, it's hard to tell who's arguing for what. That being said, if it's clear that someone is a problem in other communities, I think it makes sense for mods or admins to preemptively ban them.

[–] AwkwardBroccolli@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

Blanket bans have sometimes helped me in the past. Lemmy IMO is not at the scale where that would be necessary. A contextual evaluation can still work for lemmy. Your solution of moderating it individually is the right one in this case.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

Man I am SO grateful that our election cycle is only a month long.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 29 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds good to me.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Will we be restricting the posting of links to foreign owned media?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

That seems like a little much - there's plenty of foreign media that produces worthwhile content.

Blacklisting certain outlets, on the other hand...

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago

That may be a more reasonable and targeted approach. I am mainly suggesting this from a place of concern about US interference in our upcoming election.

It may be easier to have a specific list of banned outlets.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

I certainly wouldn't miss the Western Standard...

[–] Paragone@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Please, please, please, flag all foreign-owned media, especially foreign-owned "Canadian" media, which is part of the strategic-machine they're running..

( no, I don't mean as national-operations, I mean as operations intended to highjack the whole damn world, for sake of oligarchy's dictatorship, which now I know to be an actual strategic-operation, .. and I didn't need any more depression-inducing "medication", just now, thanks, world. Bah. Humbug, too. )

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

To what extent? Do we have an issue with Reuters or AP now? How about Canadian commentators like Steve Boots on foreign YouTube?

I'm having a hard time envisioning a rule around this that can be enforced equitably, but we can equitably reject content regardless of source, based on established merits of its substance.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Instead of an open ended rule, it’s easier to just blocklist a few repeat offenders like everything owned by Postmedia.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

Let's also add Sun Media and Saltwire Network to the blocklist.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Technically Reuters is not foreign owned

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

Learn something new every day. 🙂

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well....shit... that's cool!

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

We could require a source on claims. It's not perfect, but it would weed out low-effort stuff.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No decisions have been made on that yet, and I'm happy to discuss more about it :)

Right now, I think a rule like that might be too broad. A big part of this election is about what's going on outside of Canada, so I can see us having to make exceptions for important news that hasn't been covered by a local news organization yet. I'd prefer to set some basic rules that we can follow consistently, and deal with problem posts if/when they get posted. Misleading and inaccurate headlines would still be removed under this rule

[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just to add to your comment, case in point, The Guardian sometimes covers Canadian news, and has recently published a bit more about current Canadian political events. They operate mainly in the UK but have a US office. They are independent and don’t have a corporate backer, and have been working relentlessly covering the events in the US since the new admin took power.

Digressing a bit, I’d urge people to use tools like GroundNews to find out the political leanings and maybe even the corporate owners of news outlets that you come across, and use that to your own judgement.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

True, as Reuters, The Guardian and The Associated Press are not pretending to be Canadian in order to push their oligarchical interests.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

They just recently changed ownership, ditching most of their journalists, apparently.

Much more profit-oriented, now, apparently, even if it isn't their prime-directive..

Here's a link: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/guardian-slammed-more-70-journalists-174822542.html

[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

I think you’re either quoting the wrong article, or misread the article. The article talks about the new ownership of The Observer, which is a sister publication to The Guardian.

It’s odd that this “The Standard” publication is the only one that seems to talk about the selling of the Observer and how it was handled, with some even smaller publications. That said, The Standard is majority owned by a Russian oligarch, sometimes sensationalize titles and events, and don’t always have their facts right.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, just block things from the Sun network and it's half the job done. No complicated debates required, no risk of cross-fire with the entire rest of the news world.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm sure @AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca will like to speak up. As they have produced a great guide on foreign media posing as canadian.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

No need to, people like you and others have already done so! As was the original hope of creating the infographic!

I'll take a step back from this. Proportional representation is the real end game.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

I fully support any effort to eliminate misinformation ahead of the election and to ban bad actors.

[–] LimpRimble@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

How about a reminder to not feed the trolls?

Edit: And maybe a pinned daily or weekly (depending on traffic) mega thread?

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

My understanding is that this covers only disinformation about Elections Canada, not in general, like news about people, politicians, provinces, policies, institutions, etc…

I suggest to also pin + sidebar one of Canada's guides to identify and report disinformation.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

These are great, thank you! I can link them in this post as well as in our weekly threads.

[–] HonoredMule@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

That sounds like a good idea to me. I'd say the first link is probably the best/most accessible single-page resource, but the third's "Learn More" section of links the most comprehensive overall -- it even directly links the first resource. Given the length of articles that get traction here, I think this is a community that can handle the comprehensive option.

[–] hrmbee@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 weeks ago

I think this would be a reasonable step to take. IMO it's better to have policies in place before things go sideways rather than try to implement things afterwards so kudos for this!

[–] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago

strongly agree! there is so much trouble allready with misinformation, anything to help stop its spread helps

[–] chrisbtoo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

That seems like a good move.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 2 weeks ago

Good luck to my northern neighbors. It's near impossible to stop the online shitnado.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

CANADA DOESNT NEED A SMALL pp

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

Good timing as I remember back in the fall that there were some trolls brigading the instance defending their lord of Nechako Lakes.

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

Those are both good rules. I wouldn't be surprised to see information being weaponized more frequently as we get closer to the election.

They're also good rules in general, too. Misinformation should be removed and repeat offenders should be banned.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Cool beans I am all for it.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I'm 100% in favour of this