this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
48 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
726 readers
495 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i don't think they should be merged, but slop should just be relaxed rules, and gossip more stringent rules, so that people can block comms as they desire (malice of public figures vs general no-names and names malice comm, one is encompassing the other if the poster is confused)
Where would you draw the line on the level of public figure for the other comm? How well known do they need to be before they’re appropriate for it?
Would you keep the name and display name of the other comm as-is, or change one or both?
arbitrary line of 100k subscribers for example (?), heavily tilts to public figure. ngos/professors/people paid for opinions in some sense, fit as well, like new york crimes "journalists". i'm fine with anything, i put in slop something where i can't be bothered to find source and check realness, or just some galaxy brain take with 2 likes, but last time people didn't want to see dicking random no-names, which i find a fair concern so like eh, why break it
Maria Danzilo is a “Former NYS Senate candidate”. I picked Heather Morgan as an example in another post because I assumed someone who had run for a state-level office did meet criteria. It turns out neither has 100k followers. TNOQuoProQuid has more followers than Maria but less than Heather, but is posting a photo from Chris Geidner who passes the bar. All of these names are new to me, or to the extent they’re not, I don’t remember or recognize them.
The line still seems way too blurry and hard to draw to me 🤷
The official DNC YouTube channel has most of their videos at less than 3,000 views lmaoooooo 🤣
Their videos from Obama's admin and the 2016 election have millions of views. Anything from around 2017 and later? Charlie Kirk's assassination has more traffic.
But 135k subscribers, so surely they pass the bar? 👀
I ended up with "has a Wikipedia article," which is a completely arbitrary and pointless distinction. But it does work as a criterion.
Haha 🫠
I’m still lost
It seems like some semi-common themes/concerns about having a single comm include:
It doesn’t seem like these are current issues, so much as issues that have happened in the past. Scrolling through a couple pages of posts, the closest I saw to “check out this gigantic thread with a random nobody” isn’t one I think the poster participated in, though I’m not diving back into that one again.
Would something relatively arbitrary like “don’t overrun the comm” that gives the mods a lever to say “that’s a bit much (from you/of that type of content/of that take), please scale back” give enough room to keep the slop enjoyable? What about a limit specifically on the frequency of posting conversations you participated in to, say, no more than 1/week?
In short, while I didn’t dig deeply enough to know exactly when the poster was a participant vs not, at a glance it seems like making the distinction whether someone was involved in the discussion would mean the past several weeks of posts here all pass that bar.
I guess I still get stuck on when posting a convo I was involved in crosses a line into being a personal vendetta. I shared a screenshot (as a comment, not a post itself) recently of a single comment with a horrid take from a thread I participated in. Is the fact that I replied to the comment enough to make that a vendetta? If my replies had been meaner would that have made it a vendetta? If I had screenshotted more of the convo and included my replies regardless of how mean they are?
If I repeatedly post that particular user, or purposefully follow them around to argue with them and post it, that seems like it would clearly cross that line, but what if I happen to run across another bad take by them without seeking it out? What if they start following me around to argue?
It seems like the “safe” side of that rule would be for me to not have posted about them at all since I did more than read their post.