Dog-piling is when someone expresses an opinion and people swarm in the comments telling the OC how wrong they are and how right they are. Typically the person getting dogpiled is downvoted into oblivion in the process. Note that I’m not talking about anything controversial in their opinion or the comment being trolling in any way; just any general disagreement with the groupthink.

Brief example:

User 1:  There are lots of factors at play here, not just money.  There's X, Y, Z, and those are all independent from money.
  |____> User 2: No, it's money.  It's always money
  |______>  User 4: Right?  How can anyone think it's anything *but* money?  Some people!
  |____> User 3: Yes, well, X, Y, and Z wouldn't be a problem if not for capitalism, so it's definitely money, and you're wrong.
  |____> User 5: It all boils down to money; always does.
  |____> User 6: Of course it's money.  Only a capitalist bootlicker would think otherwise.
  |____> User 7: Go back to Reddit, troll.
  |____> User 8: You're so close, but it's money.  
  ...
  |____> User 999: (Same as the last 998 comments; contributes nothing except attacking the opinion for being different)

None of that adds anything to the discussion; they’re not engaging on the subject, just attacking the opinion because it differs.

That behavior does not seem healthy to me and seems like it’s almost designed to discourage anyone from expressing any opinion that’s not part of the established group think. Again, I am not talking about trolls here, just any kind of differing opinions.

Should that kind of behavior be discouraged? If so, as a mod, what would be the best way to address it? After the 2nd or 3rd dogpile comment, start removing subsequent ones that are just piling on?

It’s definitely a people problem, so I’m curious what would be a gentle but firm way to deal with it.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    3 days ago

    You can’t create rules against dog-piling when its being implicitly encouraged by strongly editorial moderation which cultivates a community which is reactionary to minority opinions.

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyzEnglish
      32·
      3 days ago

      Dogpiling affects even views that are orthogonal to what the mods would enforce. So it’s a more of a general problem.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        3 days ago

        I mean I can point you to it explicitly happening. I’ve been working on something broader that focuses on how editorial moderation shifted specific sub’s into echo chambers over the course of 2023-2024 to cultivate a community with a largely homogeneous perspective that was antiseptic to dissent. So I’ve been pulling and working on the data for this for quite a while.

        I’ve got ample evidence to support my above statement. This isn’t speculation, and moderation has even explicitly said that they’ve moderated in a fashion to cultivate specific political narratives that agree with their biases.

        • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyzEnglish
          21·
          3 days ago

          I mean I can point you to it explicitly happening.

          And I can also point you to situations where dogpiling happens regardless of any reasonable stake the mods would have on that discussion. If it happens with or without editorial moderation, then editorial moderation is not the cause.

          I’ve been working on something broader that focuses on how editorial moderation shifted specific sub’s into echo chambers over the course of 2023-2024 to cultivate a community with a largely homogeneous perspective that was antiseptic to dissent. So I’ve been pulling and working on the data for this for quite a while.

          I’ve got ample evidence to support my above statement. This isn’t speculation, and moderation has even explicitly said that they’ve moderated in a fashion to cultivate specific political narratives that agree with their biases.

          If you have data to show already, do it now.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            3 days ago

            I think you are missing the point. The point is that dog piling as a behavior is something that is selected for or against by moderation over long periods of time. It’s a mind of culture or community that is cultivated. Rules in aside bar don’t have any bearing on the kind of community moderation is selecting for.

            • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyzEnglish
              11·
              3 days ago

              I don’t think I’m missing the point.

              What I’m saying is that the rules would still help, even if you have a strongly editorial moderation cultivating a comm reactionary to minority opinions. Because the root cause of dogpiling is not in that moderation and their practices - like you said, the moderation is only selecting for/against it, but the root is in human nature.

              And depending on how the rule against dogpiling is made, it could even curb down strong editorial tendencies.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                3 days ago

                So like I said, and thank you for making it clear, you are missing the point.

                I’m explicitly saying that the root cause of dog piling is moderating selecting for a culture that confirms to their biases. The issue isn’t the dog piling, it’s that moderation specifically selects for it when it meets their biases, and only enforced policies selectively.

                We have some real questions to address about exactly who owns a community or the content it creates. I, like many here, was there at the beginning of Reddit, coming from the first Digg migration, and before that Fark, and before that SA, and even CL abd IRC. There is a regular confusion that happens between site developers and owners that they themselves own or are responsible for the content a community creates, and that they should be in control of that. That same confusion exists with moderators and the communities that they are responsible for. Communities through the process of their creation create the rules and norms they abide by; not a side bar with some words on it. You can’t change behavior without a change in moderation, because this is ultimately the function the community responds to.

                The issue is that communities (and more broadly, whole instances) are built to be tin-pot dictatorships, by design. The solution would be a more advanced set of tools that operate to get by in from communities in terms of policy and which also work to both reward and punish moderation.

                • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyzEnglish
                  11·
                  3 days ago

                  So like I said, and thank you for making it clear, you are missing the point. // I’m explicitly saying that the root cause of dog piling is moderating selecting for a culture that confirms to their biases

                  Nah, it’s the complete opposite - you confirmed that I accurately understood your false claim. I understood your claim and I believe it to be wrong. I’m calling it bullshit.

                  Simple evidence that you’re wrong: dogpiling happens even in real life. Even if there’s no bloody “RL mod” selecting for a culture that confirms their personal biases. If A happens in the absence of B, that shows that either

                  1. B is not the root cause of A; or
                  2. There are at least two independent causes for A.

                  Ockham’s Razor makes short work of #2.

                  [I listed earlier another evidence, by the way. Right at the start. Go dig it.]

                  [shifting goalposts] The issue isn’t the dog piling. it’s that moderation specifically selects for it when it meets their biases, and only enforced policies selectively.

                  Nope. Dogpiling is itself also a problem. And both problems interact. However, one problem is not the cause of the other.

                  Communities through the process of their creation create the rules and norms they abide by; not a side bar with some words on it.

                  That argument would be valid if and only if the written rules had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the community’s behaviour.

                  The rest of your comment boils down to a verbose turd of red herring sprinkled with a “chrust me, I have kwalifikashuns 2 say dis, than I’m rite ur rong”. I did read it fully but I’m not arsing myself with it.