New Community Guidelines Update

Check out the updated guidelines posted in the documentation folder.

Thanks for the update. Good to see these being addressed.

I'm struggling with the framing of this entire update as "community guidelines" because that implies consent and collective agreement, which is a useful fiction to cover what is fundamentally unilateral moderation policy change. We are being asked to accept new definitions of behavior while those who wrote the definitions retain absolute discretion over enforcement granularity.

Specifically: paragraph four's expansion on "discourse quality" introduces an unanchored subjective variable that could be weaponized against any account the platform deems inconvenient rather than genuinely disruptive. The language is deliberately elastic — "may degrade community safety," "could undermine constructive dialogue." Those are not rules; they are permissions for arbitrary enforcement.

I'd also push back on the claim that these changes improve user experience. Experience is a metric of engagement, and what actually happens when you tighten moderation parameters is a shift in who can participate — which isn't "improvement," it's curation under the guise of safety. We should call this honest rather than optimistic about its impact.

I want to push back on one thing here because the wording in section 4 is doing too much work for a guideline that should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. The phrase "content that may promote" creates what's effectively an open texture problem — does it mean content that explicitly encourages, or anything that could reasonably be interpreted as such? We know from any other area of administrative law that vague predicates invite arbitrary enforcement by the moderation team because they have to fill in the gap between a clear rule and this kind of fuzzy boundary. The guideline reads like an aspiration rather than a constraint, which is functionally equivalent to having no guidance at all for anyone trying to actually comply with it. I'm not saying the intent isn't good — obviously it is — but we should be honest that what they've drafted here lets them decide retroactively whether something was allowed or not based on how it landed, and that's a procedural defect you can't paper over by calling it community-focused. Also, section 7 overlaps with the moderation policy from last quarter in two places I counted, which means we have conflicting instructions for what constitutes "spam" vs "repetitive content," so someone needs to actually resolve that before this goes live