28

I recently came across a comment on this answer and I was unsure on what to do, if anything. Here's what the comment says:

Thank you for the answer. Quick info: I was deeply interested in and inspired by Raku between August 2019 and February 2020, until the fakedemic aka Covid-19 kicked in at around March 2020. Actually the @fib_v2 was written by me (at around November 2019) when I knew the fine detail of binding versus assigning a scalar variable to an array because I was frequently writing Raku code at the time. I intend to be fluent in Raku again.

So the comment isn't too useful in the first place, but I was surprised about the author's use of the word "fakedemic". The comment itself isn't primarily political, so there isn't much of a reason to flag it, but I still feel like it should be flagged or reacted to. What should I do?

I thought there'd be something on Stack Overflow's Code of Conduct, but I couldn't really find anything relevant to this type of stuff. Also, I'm not sure if it's even fair to flag/react to the comment because it could be seen as an opinion, albeit highly controversial. The only two flag reasons I think could be remotely applicable are no longer being relevant (because it's a thank you comment) and being offensive (however, again, highly opinion based).

4
  • 25
    I think even if the comment was useful, you could mod flag and ask for the irrelevant content to be removed.
    – khelwood
    Commented Oct 4, 2022 at 23:55
  • 8
    I can't see being this enough of a problem to warrant anything other than flagging it as irrelevant and moving on.
    – user438383
    Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 21:11
  • 4
    Another example of a weaved-in political message.
    – Peter Mortensen
    Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 22:25
  • Given that whether COVID is a hoax or not has nothing to do with programming, I would just flag as no longer needed.
    – CPlus
    Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 18:30

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
42

Even if it didn't have any conspiratorial text, it doesn't add anything to the post.

It’s a conversational comment at best that’s essentially saying "thank you". The post author already responded to it; so it already served its purpose. I would flag it as "no longer needed".

28

The comment itself isn't primarily political, so there isn't much of a reason to flag it

It is not Stack Overflow's place to intervene in the political opinions of users anyway; but they do not belong in questions, answers, comments or chat. This is, after all, not a discussion forum, and topicality is taken very seriously. People can share their opinions on their user pages, or better yet on off-site blogs linked from their user pages. (Meta is inherently "political", but only with an extremely specific focus.)

The comment would be useless regardless of any political opinion expressed. It does not help understand the answer, and does not justify the need to ask the question (which does not require justification anyway). It was never needed, therefore it is "no longer needed" and should be flagged as such. The same is true of the response. The use of individual words or slogans for a political purpose is a red herring here - to have the opportunity to bring up real-world politics in discussing Stack Overflow content, one necessarily has already gone off topic.

Offensive comments, generally, are a subset of unnecessary comments - it should never be necessary to offend people in order to convey technical information, ask for clarification or rise on a point of order. (Well, there will always be people who take offense at being told that their question is not appropriate for the site; but that appropriateness is about as objective as it gets, so.) Flagging a comment this way entails a greater chance of moderators getting involved directly in order to reprimand someone's conduct. I don't see anything in the code of conduct about taking the political view implied here.

2
19

I think the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic is "fake" will be quite offensive to many people who have lost family members and friends to COVID-19, not to mention many other groups of people who have been affected by the pandemic in various ways. So I would flag such comments as "offensive".

0
13

I say we take the situation a wee bit more seriously.

It so happened that this comment was more of an extended "thank you" comment and did not really provide any useful information; and comments in general are ephemeral and may be subject to removal in any case.

However, calling the COVID-19 pandemic a "fakedemic" is not just a political opinion. It is a severe form of misinformation. And you might counter-argue that it is not the moderator's responsibility to fight against misinformation in the comments, but it can actually become a violation of the code of conduct, because it causes harm passively as people are desensitized to the problem and lead to infecting more vulnerable people. As such, it is also a form of alienation towards the people more concerned about avoiding infection.

Emphasis mine:

We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.

It is good that the comment is removed as soon as possible. This comment in particular is also a bit subtle and hard to distinguish from plain trolling or jesting about the people who underestimate the whole situation. But in the event that any user:

  • reveals their colors as being against the use, especially by other people, of respiratory protection masks, ventilation, vaccines, and other confirmed safety measures;
  • insists in using that term unironically to describe the COVID-19 pandemic;
  • and proceeds to depict it in a way which is false and considered harmful (e.g "it does not exist", and "you're better off getting infected over protecting yourself")...

...do gather that as evidence and cast a post flag for moderator attention. Because at this point, the safety and wellbeing of participants and visitors are being jeopardized.

16
  • 6
    "...is not just a political opinion. It is a severe form of misinformation..." But that depends on what they meant by 'fakedemic' doesn't it? You've shoe-horned your own assumptions in. "Because at this point, the safety and wellbeing of participants and visitors are being jeopardized." By a single word in a comment? How is that jeopardizing anybody's safety, especially since we don't actually know what they truly meant by it? And safety from what exactly? You think the use of that word is going to change somebody's mind at this point? Most people, businesses and governments are moving on....
    – ouflak
    Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 17:11
  • 22
    "because it causes harm passively as people are desensitized to the problem and lead to infecting more vulnerable people." I mean, I agree with you, but I'm very reluctant to take such an expansive interpretation of the Code of Conduct. I think that is not a good precedent to set.
    – Cody Gray - on strike Mod
    Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 18:38
  • 4
    "is not just a political opinion. It is a severe form of misinformation" To be misinformation, it would first have to be an objective claim, and would also have to represent itself as in some way authoritative (as opposed to, say, attempting to argue for a position from first principles).
    – Karl Knechtel
    Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 19:55
  • 11
    We have a good place on the Internet here. YouTube comments are completely overrun by such conspiracy rubbish, both by trolls and bots. Even to point where they respond to each others' "comments". Creators can block them (the only real effective measure), but they seldom do (for whatever reason).
    – Peter Mortensen
    Commented Oct 5, 2022 at 20:39
  • 1
    @ouflak the point where our wellbeing is jeopardized is not the point where this single comment is posted, but the point where we have someone doing what I described in the bullet points. Looks like we're both fond of shoehorning.
    – E_net4
    Commented Oct 6, 2022 at 7:42
  • 1
    I think the bottom line is that SO/SE needs to be a trustworthy source of information to maintain its position - the very reason why most people ask programming questions here and not on Reddit/Quora is because those sites give less trustworthy answers. In the spirit of that, conspiracy theories and the like have no place here, or else they might endanger the core product. SO the company have always been responsive in deleting reported "snake oil"/non-scientific medicine adverts, so I think they are aligned with the community in this case.
    – Lundin
    Commented Oct 7, 2022 at 12:58
  • 11
    While I agree that the language in the comment was inappropriate for SO and offensive to many, I think its status as misinformation isn't salient to the issue. If I were to make a comment that is inappropriate and offensive, and even likely to cause harm, but unambiguously true (leaking state secrets, perhaps?), the proper response would be the same. Let's not invoke "misinformation" as the reason for moderator action.
    – trent
    Commented Oct 7, 2022 at 13:03
  • 1
    @trent "Let's not invoke "misinformation" as the reason for moderator action." That I did not say, and I explained that this is a problem explicitly because it causes harm. Maybe the answer could have been rephrased to show less emphasis on the misinformation part, but ultimately and in this case, it's the misinformation itself that can cause harm.
    – E_net4
    Commented Oct 7, 2022 at 13:35
  • "calling the COVID-19 pandemic a "fakedemic" is not just a political opinion. It is a severe form of misinformation" Labeling something you disagree with as "misinformation" suggests that you have the complete truth (TM) on a matter, which you do not. It is not the official government position (TM), true, but there are a great many scientists, doctors, and others who agree with this position, and whose voices are being silenced by the prevailing spirit of censorship.
    – therealrodk
    Commented Oct 7, 2022 at 22:10
  • 3
    "...there are a great many scientists [and] doctors who agree with this position [that the COVID-19 pandemic is 'fake']..." I don't know of any, there might well be a couple, but there certainly is not "a great many". That is a definite example of misinformation worthy of the term. Perhaps it would be a good Skeptics question?
    – Cody Gray - on strike Mod
    Commented Oct 8, 2022 at 0:40
  • @therealrodk Deleting that comment of yours could help you evade further embarrassment.
    – E_net4
    Commented Dec 14, 2022 at 17:32
  • 1
    The fact that you aren't aware of the number of COVID skeptics and dissenters is a disturbing result of the censorship that has prevailed for the past three years. These people have held conferences, put out press releases and videos, and even scientific papers. But I should be embarrassed for knowing this, and mentioning it is misinformation...
    – therealrodk
    Commented Dec 14, 2022 at 20:54
  • 2
    I mean... there's flat earth conferences, press releases, videos, and "scientific" papers... doesnt mean it's real.
    – Kevin B
    Commented Dec 14, 2022 at 20:59
  • @therealrodk The fact that I haven't had contact with such kind of skeptics is a sign that pseudoscience and other BS have successfully been rejected by most societies and scientific groups. You probably fell into a misinformation cesspit. I pity for you.
    – E_net4
    Commented Dec 15, 2022 at 9:12
  • > A group of 17,000 physicians and medical scientists led by Dr. Robert Malone has issued a declaration affirming that “the [COVID] state of medical emergency must be lifted, scientific integrity restored, and crimes against humanity addressed... the Global Summit asserts its mission “to end this orchestrated crisis, which has been illegitimately imposed on the world..." Source See "Twitter Files" re: censorship of these legitimate drs and scientists.
    – therealrodk
    Commented Jan 2, 2023 at 21:52
6

Any reasonable person would find such a comment unnecessary, off topic, inflammatory, offensive, and obviously false. Comments like that have no place in respectful discourse and should be flagged whenever they're found.

5
  • (tongue-in-cheek) The problem with this standard is that flags are handled by moderators, not "reasonable people". I mean, have you met any of the moderators?
    – Cody Gray - on strike Mod
    Commented Oct 8, 2022 at 0:42
  • So should I flag for special moderator attention, or a default option?
    – Michael M.
    Commented Oct 8, 2022 at 1:12
  • @MichaelM Don't let the user interface or the special labels confuse you. All of the comment flags, regardless of type, mean one thing, and one thing only: "this comment adds no value and needs to be deleted". The category labels/breakdowns just help to aid users (when flagging) in understanding what broad types of comments add no value and therefore need to be deleted. I think it's pretty clear from everyone who participated here that the comment in question adds no value and should be removed, so flagging it is appropriate. When in doubt, "no longer needed" is a good choice.
    – Cody Gray - on strike Mod
    Commented Oct 8, 2022 at 3:34
  • 1
    The only time you would want to flag a comment for a custom reason is when the reason why that comment adds no value and needs to be deleted is non-obvious. For example, maybe a useful comment was accidentally posted twice. Then, you'd flag the second copy of it with a custom reason, explaining that it was posted twice. That way, when a mod looks at the flagged comment in isolation on the mod flag dashboard, they won't inadvertently decline your flag, not realizing that it is actually a repost. In this case, I don't see any reason to raise a custom flag; the comment's problems are obvious.
    – Cody Gray - on strike Mod
    Commented Oct 8, 2022 at 3:36
  • 1
    @CodyGray In this case, it's really all three of the standard flag reasons: it's no longer needed (because it wasn't relevant to the discussion). It's also deliberately (or at least knowingly) inflammatory and offensive, so it's Unfriendly or Unkind at a minimum. In my opinion at least, it's inflammatory enough to rise to the level of harassment/abuse.
    – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine
    Commented Oct 8, 2022 at 4:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .