78
A story as old as federated social media, in 3 parts
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
78 points (85.5% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
39 readers
68 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
- Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment).
- Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction.
- Don't use private communications to prove your point. We can't verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don't deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin' in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Isn't "we lack agency" the exact argument you removed? Casting others in either black or white is unnecessarily flaming and often used by power-grabbers to divide the electorate and drum up perfervid support. Nobody's wholly supporting Harris or supporting her stance on the war here. I saw the thread before it was removed.
Something Awful forums apparently have some sort of sitewide account ban for strawmanning, saying that someone said something which clearly isn't what they said, so you can get upset at them about the thing they didn't say. The longer I stay on Lemmy, the more I think that kind of rule is a great idea.
That sounds a bit too extreme if it's a one-strike
I'm not sure if it's a permaban. Apparently their system is that accounts cost $10 for the lifetime of the account, but you can't get out of line in certain ways, strawmanning being one of them, or you might get a temp ban or lose your account entirely and have to pay another $10.
I don't know that much about it but I think it sounds great. I don't know how you could ever bring that energy to Lemmy, but it sounds a lot better than the "let's invite all the mysterious new accounts with strong opinions about the Democrats to come and play as hard as they want, oh also we ban because today you disagreed with a mod" philosophy.
With that hypothetical system, who would be in charge of deciding the strawmanning? Seems hard to implement in a federated system
The wider concept, where they put actuality to the idea that every account on the network is a privilege and if you're a jerk there's a real penalty, I don't think you could do on Lemmy. It's just not the culture here.
I think it would be possible for one community to have a rule that if you pretend someone else said something they clearly didn't say, it's a temp ban. It would be difficult for a certain crop of user accounts to deal with, but I think those are exactly the ones that aren't adding anything but suffering to the conversation, so nothing would be lost by booting them until they learned. I think it would be a good idea. Case in point, this fucking guy. I've given up trying to explain to him that I don't want genocide any more than he claims not to, and I don't even really like Kamala Harris, I just mostly think Trump in charge of the US is a biblical horror, and I want to avoid it. Somehow that keeps turning into that I love Kamala Harris and defend every part of her platform. I don't even know why I've invested so much keyboard time into this conversation, other than the idea of someone promoting don't-vote-ism is really alarming to me, and I want to say something when I see it.
No it wasn't. They were justifying and defending Harris and defending voting for Harris. Anti-anarchists don't get to use anarchist spaces to push anti-anarchist talking points. They have literally almost every other Lemmy instance to push their voting agenda, why should they use ours?
How were they justifying Harris's genocide policies? Isn't defending voting for Harris defending the shitty choice?
Defending the shitty choice is defending the program of your vote. You can vote for the lesser evil, but do you need to defend the evil? Do you need to justify the evil? No. Just vote. You don't need to defend or justify evil.
Then how may I explain that voting for the lesser evil is the best course of action in my state's scenario? And again, how were they justifying Harris's genocide policies?
Good luck, lol. I’m out.
Have you looked into vote swapping programs? If you want to vote principally yet remain tactical, look into that. But don't go around providing ideological cover for genocide.
Based on your argument, one cannot justify the person in the swing state voting for Harris? And again, how were they defending Harris's genocide policies?
edit:fixed think-o lol, safe→swing