You must log in or register to comment.
Was that comment really a rule violation? Would you want that comment to be removed if someone else had posted it?
I just don’t see the controversy here.
Do you think it’s against the rules to imply that someone’s religion isn’t real? Why should that be something we can’t say?
yup definitely broke a rule. if you look at the actual context the offense is more obvious.
I looked at many comments in that thread when the conversation was linked in a different post. Never noticed a rule violation.
Do you really think it’s against the rules to imply someone’s religion isn’t real? I would be much more concerned if comments like that were censored.
im not personally here to rules lawyer. bro got their comment deleted for breaking the rules in their own sub, and that’s the story here.
what i think or what you think literally doesn’t matter, unless you wanna go appeal for them or sumthin 🤷♀️
We’re all here to talk about stuff. That’s what’s happening here.
Guess I’m just shocked that such a comment would be removed. Seems harmless. It changes how I think about that community.
deleted by creator
Mods have been using their positions to silence/ support specific political views in both c/news and c/politics (see non-rule breaking ban of @return2ozma@lemmy.world ). The have a very specific and narrow political view they are “ok” with seeing and anything that strays from that gets removed (see @Blackbeard@lemmy.world , @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ). However, its not any different than reddit in this regard, which was more draconian in that because it was so much larger, there were fewer consequences to banning individuals.
Here, the consequences are much much steeper. You can map the return2ozma ban directly to a drop in site wide/ lemmy wide engagement, because they were the one doing the actual work of posting content. Banning them had immediate and significant consequences to the viabiltiy of the platform, in that it survives on content/ engagement, which @return2ozma@lemmy.world was disproportional responsible for. In these kinds of arbitrary bans, these mods are hurting the entire platforms viability in a significant way.
Dude was rightfully banned for spamming the community. It’s absolutely against the rules. That you think it was a politically motivated move by the mods only shows your own bias in these matters.
The community he was banned from has banned people on al sides of the political spectrum. So when you go looking for a bias, you’ll find one if you want to.
From my perspective, Ozma does nothing but post anti-Biden propaganda. The dude is a bit of I ever saw one.
So you see, there two sides to everything. Who were left to do our best to see things from the perspective of those trying to maintain balance. And in this case, due was banned for spamming.
Nothing more.
Hi, it’s me. I’m on the fence about it. On one hand I guess I did post a lot of articles, even though they were on topic being political in a political channel. On the other hand, It is the mods decision to decide who gets banned and who stays.
I appreciate your input on this. I had you blocked for a bit, not because of your political position, but because your posts demonstrating your knowing “which headlines/articles will get the most engagement from all sides” ignored the quality of that engagement.
I’m not sure why I have this perspective while everyone else in the thread announcing your ban was upset about the spamming aspect, like Jim above. I found that your posts and comments were never aimed at fostering constructive discussion. Instead, they seemed designed to provoke reactions, which 99.9% of the time resulted in screaming matches and insults. I wouldn’t want to make this accusation, except that you have now more or less admitted to it here.
This is why I disagree with Tropical’s defense of you. Your content did indeed maximize engagement, but it was exhausting to read through. I never felt I was missing out with you blocked because other posts, similar to yours, hosted much more constructive and less toxic discussions.
And note that this still fits the definition of spam, as it was clear from the modlogs that your content was putting an extra burden on the moderators with the amount of inappropriate content it generated.
I’m not a mod, but hearing you say this makes my thoughts on the situation clearer. I hope they might be helpful to you as well.
We partially agree on this. You posted a lot of very specially tailored articles. It is a political community- so that’s not the part that’s a problem. While the amount of the posts was a lot- that we agree on, the bias in the subject matter was absolutely tilted towards an anti-Biden agenda.
Your posts still are, but that’s your thing. You’re allowed to hate whoever you’d like. I think the saying is- you’re free to say what you want, and everyone else is free to call it out.
To summarize, you didn’t do anything wrong by being anti-Biden, that’s opinion related. What you did wrong was spam a community which is against the rules.
At least that’s what the mods were saying.
I mean at this point, with the polls showing Biden is losing in most swing states and multiple mainstream newspapers calling for him to step down, if you’re not trying to get Biden to resign then you’re helping Trump win. I know that sounds like a hot take but that’s how I feel about it. I have never wanted Trump to win. At least some of my posts have lit a fire under Dem supporters so they didn’t get complacent, hopefully.
Everyone should know by now that polls are absolute bullshit.
And… Hopefully your posts fell flat in all aspects, because you’re essentially urging people to not vote. And that guarantees a Trump victory.
But I’m not going to get into this with you again. That’s not the point of the conversation.
thanks for sharing! i do recommend posting these issues somewhere (possibly here but unsure if mods are active; testing this out with this post) so that, if not accountability, there is at least awareness of the leanings and controversies of certain mod groups
Well its a push pull. Those who might mod are typically far more engaged, and its a thankless job. Its not something that can be easily automated and there is real important work around true bad faith actors trying to derail the entire platform/ fediverse.
Its also important to acknowledge that its a balancing act, and that frankly, I think if you are a mod for a community, maybe you should’t be allowed to participate in discussions in that community?
Its like, if you are playing pitcher, you shouldn’t also be calling balls and strikes. More broadly, its something we’ll need to keep iterating on and thinking about as a fediverse; it goes beyond lemmy and extends to the entire principal of large scale social media.
I’d really like to see you say more about this here (understand you probably are not interested that’s ok)
certainly a push pull. and lemmy is still quite limited, for example all mod comments are mod flaired with no option to post unflaired comments, which is a big problem for jordanlund and flyingsquid as they tend to have some spicy and verging on inappropriate takes in their own communities.
A polite way to say raging assholes, but I get they wield a lot of power…
Oh absolutely. I didn’t bring up Lund because I couldn’t remember their handle, but they are like, a comic book caricature of how “not” to be a mod.
Can anecdotally say that I’ve pretty much stopped using Lemmy completely at this point because of mods than somehow feel even worse than Reddit’s. Only shitposting because I’ve got a 5 day weekend and fuckall to do
I think this is a good example of the “cost” associated with how people decide to mod.
Were a very, very small community. There are maybe in the low thousand to upper hundreds engaged users across the entire fediverse.
And social media engagement always follows a log distribution, so for every 10,000 scrolling past, maybe 100 comment and 1 posts.
Preventing people from posting/ disrupting engagement because you’ve got a little fiefdom and an axe to grind is a great way to kill lemmy as a platform in the crib.
I do not necessarily think this is something that can be solved, and I do believe that mods are generally in good faith doing free labor. That said, I experienced similar cases just recently. Once, I got in an argument about the pope slur thing, and I was trying to explain that the slur was the least of the problems (being Italian, providing context), and not the reason to call out the church’s and pope homophobia (for which much stronger arguments exist). One other commenter was basically wishing death left and right, including to me, because they perceived this argument as a defense of the pope. Ultimately they reported my comment that quoted the slurs to explain the difference between various words and I got banned for “missing the point/defending a homophobe”. Apparently, wishing death to people was an acceptable behavior, questioning the severity of a word in a language I understand was not.
Just yesterday, I was discussing the post about some republican politician being in a relationship with a much younger person. I was in good faith entertaining a conversation about relationships with big age differences, but apparently the only acceptable opinion is that in those cases the older person must be a predator - no exceptions and no other possibilities allowed. For me it is almost a philosophical debate (especially because I was questioning my own morals), as it’s obvious that the age we would consider “too old” is essentially arbitrary, but no, got first moderated and then banned for “defending predators”.
Basically what I noticed here is that a lot of moderation goes into moderating opinions, and not behaviors. I understand that a lot of it is done with good motives, but it feels frustrating that it’s impossible to even discuss certain topics among adults. There are a lot topics for which only rigid opinions are allowed and any discussion that questions any part of that is forbidden. Not really an environment for productive debates, which is unfortunate.
I ended up blocking both communities where the above cases happened, so I guess ultimately the risk that you are mentioning is real. It did take away a lot of my desire to participate on Lemmy at some point.
Interesting. I regularly peruse the modlog and I remember seeing that comment getting removed. I considered hopping in to share an anecdote , but I’ll just drop in here.
I have a roommate who is an only fans model, who considers herself a self-styled “coffin robber”, her words, not mine. She began living with my wife and I in her early 20s, and I’ve literally never seen her date some one within 25-30 years her own age. That’s just her… thing. She like muscular, older dudes with shaved heads in their 50s and 60s. As she says, she like em wrinkled and wriggling.
There is a weird moralizing that comes with these flags gaps that to me seems to find its roots in American protestantism. We’re weirdly conservative around sex in ways that are just… well… weird? Like if you have a problem with it, make it illegal, otherwise, mind your own business.
I think you are spot on on your assessment that these mods are moderating opinions, not behaviors, or at least selectively moderating behavior to control opinions in the meta.
That’s a great anecdote really. I think I tried exactly to play the angle of the human experience being very diverse. It obviously didn’t work out. The story you tell is definitely one that shows different perspective in a relationship between people of different ages. There are also “famous couples” where the age difference is large (I wanted to discuss one where a female director is marrier to a 23 years younger actor, and they met on set when he was 18 - just to have one more scenario to discuss). Most importantly, I bet many people would have different answer to the question “what is the maximum age do you think a 18yo person should date”, and probably this answer would change if talking about a man or a woman being 18yo. I think it’s an interesting conversation questioning why you think a certain answer is the right one.
Now, I understand that people who want progress want to normalize discussions about phenomena that years ago wouldn’t be acknowledged as much, like predatory behavior. However if the approach is purely dogmatic it is not a progress at all. Many people use a completely binary approach to define things that are much more complicated and nuanced. And as you say, this is then enforced via moderation, which further reinforces this dogmatic perspective for people who are forming an opinion.
Sorry for the long comment, but thanks a lot for the contribution. It was a nice reality check about the fact that it is an interesting topic to discuss with many nuances!
Agreed. Ozma’s posts were some of the most active I ever saw. It doesn’t matter what’s being posted (within reason), if people are consistently engaging with it: you leave it alone. Even Reddit mods seem to understand this most times.
Thanks! I just know which headlines/articles will get the most engagement from all sides. Before I left Reddit I used to be on the front page multiple times a week. I do hope Biden or whoever they replace him with wins but I’m still going to voice my criticism of him.
Unfortunately, that particular mod often abuses their power. I had to block them, their childishness was so bad.
My offense? I called one of their posts pedantic… (Which it was)
