this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
43 points (87.7% liked)

FediLore + Fedidrama

3142 readers
6 users here now

Rules

  1. Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
  2. When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
  3. The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.

The usual instance-wide rules also apply.

Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)

Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.

Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc

(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama

Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse

Partners:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
sexy_peach@feddit.org
43
"Anti-AI trolls," transphobia, fun stuff (quokk.au)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Okay so here's what happened.

There is a mod of some AI-generated image forums who has been slinging out bans for "anti-AI trolling" to people who have never participated in their community, apparently more or less at random. Full disclosure, I am one of those people, and I'm confident I have never done any anti-AI trolling.

Apparently the justification for this is that other people are being aggressively hateful to this mod, coming in and being incredibly abusive, transphobic, insulting her for alleged alcoholism and making fake pictures of her and generally just being horrible. Conveniently, one of these people showed up in the thread where we were talking about it, on cue, and started slinging around horribleness which provided a convenient cover for people to say "And THAT's why we have to be really strict with the bans!" type of things. We never really got to the bottom of what the connection was between that and the random bans to other people who were longstanding accounts that didn't seem to be doing any of those things.

Anyway, now another abusive alt of the (now obviously bannned) abusive alt that originally stirred up trouble has made a pitch-perfect effort to inflame divisions and create a balkanization between the "pro AI" people, centered around dbzer0 (edit: ~~and blahaj~~), and "anti AI" people, centered around everywhere else.

This is two identical posts, made to two separate communities which are guaranteed to have totally opposite takes on it based on their different levels of information about the issue, which will then lead everyone to assume that the other community is just being horrible about it on purpose when they draw different conclusions:

(Edit: The troll has now been banned, so I can't link to their posts anymore. Just imagine this post, except made by one of the trolls who are featured in the comments of that post, you can dig in the modlog or in spoiler text of some other comments to see some of what they were saying. Anyway, the troll posted the exact same complaint about being "unfairly" banned both to lemmy.world, where they got tons of sympathy and upvotes, and to dbzer0, where people who were aware of what they were up to gave them derision and downvotes.)

Like I said, if the goal is to create division and heated argument between two opposing "camps," this is pretty much as perfect as you can get it. I expect it to work, at least to a certain amount, to get people embittered towards one another and arguing about the issue impassioned that the other side is wrong and stupid.

I can't find the link right now, but there was someone on reddit who claimed that they used to do this professionally (trying to disrupt online communities so that organized shilling could succeed better there, because the previous coherence that they had had had been replaced by confusion and bickering, and then they could insert bullshit without it being pushed back on as strongly.) It's fascinating. What they described isn't exactly like this, but it definitely sort of rings similar to me. Just to throw that out there.

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

Edit: Fun with grammar

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

I'm gonna repeat your favorite comment and ask where's your proof? Give me receipts.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Comments

Pretty much all of the bottom section of that page is UM getting involved in the drama of this particular "anti-AI troll." He's getting involved on the correct side, but the point is he is certainly involved.

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

that's bullshit. when you say "UM is involved", you make it sound like UM is behind it in some way. feeding trolls isn't being involved, and you know it.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But how would else Phillip win when he can ignore your posts and say no one has anything to say?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au -3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

In my opinion, someone who's involved in the conversation is "involved." Cryptagion's point isn't totally weird or crazy, but I don't really agree with it. Especially given the nature of UM's previous involvement on Lemmy, I think it's relevant if he was heavily involved in the comments for this thing, so in passing, I noted it.

I've had my share of slapfights for the day at this point. Probably for the week. What could possibly be gained by me creating a reply saying, "No, it's not bullshit! I didn't make it sound that way!" and similar things?

It feels like you really want the hostility to continue beyond the point where everyone's had their say. I have no idea why. Excitement? A desire to see as much disagreement and arguing as possible? He asked for proof, I provided, he disagreed with the interpretation, and at that point anyone who wants to read can make up their mind whose argument made sense. I have absolutely no interest in continuing beyond that point. You're free to conclude for some reason that it's a sin for me to do that, I view it as a pretty constructive approach to take.

Edit: Also, I completely forgot this even, but when UM raised the exact same objection up at the top of the thread, I actually had a pretty long conversation with him including explaining myself in detail and also apologizing about sort of bringing his name up in the nature of a punchline. We talked over DM a little bit, it didn't go anywhere because UM, and I exited the conversation, but because I'm not just a shouty little conflict creator, I actually took it seriously and had a conversation about it.

This is, again, why I think it's incredibly weird that a certain contingent of Lemmy is all up in arms about "PugJesus starts arguments!" as this big sin he's committed. Y'all love this kind of slapfight, you love finding shit you can complain about or having endless hostility with people you don't like. It's fine, I do that sometimes too although I try to cut it off when it seems like it's beyond the point of anything useful, but for you to accuse someone of arguing, stalking, following people around to give them votes or argumentative comments, etc etc, as a bad thing is hilarious given these last few messages (to pick one of any number of examples I could.)

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Weird how you didn't reply to the other person but okay. _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com

This is, again, why I think it’s incredibly weird that a certain contingent of Lemmy is all up in arms about “PugJesus starts arguments!” as this big sin he’s committed. Y’all love this kind of slapfight, you love finding shit you can complain about or having endless hostility with people you don’t like.

lol

Please lemme know when I'm anywhere near as bad as pugjesus, calling people fascists because they want democrats to fight harder, or saying they don't do something as they actively document themselves doing it. My admins will remove my messages/comments when I fuck up, hold me and them up to it. Unless I have the grave sin of "I don't like .world" which is why UM and R2O get harassed despite not doing anything.

But I know you'll always side with Pug over the people he harasses, and never actually talk to the people who are more equipped to deal with you than I am. Like the admins you ignore, or the users who are more familiar of your style.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au -4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My admins will remove my messages/comments when I fuck up, hold me and them up to it

Make sure you guys agree on a safeword beforehand

[–] andyburke@fedia.io 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hang on, you're telling me I can be randomly banned from AI communities?

How do I get my name on the list for sure? I don't want to have to just hope the randomness gods smile on me.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You could just block them you know.

I have no interest in communities dedicated to female celebrities. When they started cropping up, I blocked them (well until I found out it was mostly one user creating the communities and then posting to them, so I just blocked them, but... Same result).

Its pretty easy, about two clicks typically.

[–] andyburke@fedia.io 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I was hoping I wouldn't need to do any work and the AI people would just automatically save me from them.

Guess AI disappoints yet again...

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 week ago

They might ban you preemptively, actually.

I'm just saying you have a readily available tool at your fingertips, which you could use rather than just complain about the existence of a community you apparently haven't even seen.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I don't think being banned prevents it from showing up on your feed. Best to block as you scroll.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You could just block them you know.

Amazing how many on Lemmy refuse to do that, and instead just complain. lol

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why block when you can harass! That's more sane and normal, right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 11 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

Ugh, the cancer of the fediverse

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

The dbzer0 admins and users are definitely creating a problem where there is none, even if there are some anti-AI trolls.

Take a look at this thread where a dbzer0 user was harassing people and using a handful of accounts to manipulate votes: https://lemmy.world/post/32430859

Multiple admins and users came around to start shit about anti-AI when the problem had absolutely nothing to do with that at all.

[–] Luci@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I want to know what I did to be marked as an anti-AI troll. There are specifics in what trolling is imo so I'd like to know more, maybe even defend myself.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not the mod, but if you've ever down voted with no other interaction, my guess would be that. Or timing of a downvote coinciding with a bunch of others from other accounts, again as a singular downvote.

There is a tool which will coord down votes across multiple accounts, which is helping some trolls - notably the anti-AI trolls mentioned - coordinate mass down votes to try to avoid detection.

[–] lemonySplit@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Louder for the people in the back

"Downvoting (a single vote) on its own does not constitute trolling"

Its literally participating in the fediverse whether you cry over karma or not.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A couple of people who were banned asked about that, and there wasn't really an answer. IDK if this post is the right place for it, it sort of seems like it's walking up to that line of breaking the community rules by being the drama instead of posting about the drama, but yes it seems like a reasonable question to ask to me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Yeah, I was one of the ones banned from a number of AI communities despite not engaging with them really on my old Lemm.ee account. With UM involved, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised :) Sounds like just the sort of shit he'd have a hand in stirring up and just the way he'd do it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] funbreaker@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago

Ten USD says any criticism of AI is being lumped in with the actual trolling.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

How am I involved?! I have nothing to do with this drama. I'm not the mod of those communities, nor am I the person complaining about any of it.

Only thing I've done is vote and comment in the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com community where the issues first came up.

Thanks, friend! :)

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The latest anti-AI alt made purely to harass Mystic seems to be banned and their content removed, so the links are broken, FYI.

Edit: Also your quotes around anti-AI trolls - which they literally are - is definitely putting a spin on the reality here. Makes me think your ban was entirely appropriate.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh. IDK why I didn't see that coming.

Anyway, the post before it was deleted was more or less a carbon copy of this post, except that it was made by one of the trolls, who actually do deserve to be banned. And so, all of lemmy.world took a look at that and said, "Yeah that's messed up they shouldn't ban you for no reason," and all of dbzer0 took a look at that and said "But you're clearly a twat so of course they banned you, YDI". I don't know if the two camps had a chance to have each notice the other and start fighting, but people are already talking in these comments about a reason to block all of dbzer0 as a result, which I think was exactly the kind of intended response for this to generate.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

people are already talking in these comments about a reason to block all of dbzer0 as a result, which I think was exactly the kind of intended response for this to generate.

Probably their goal, yes.

except that it was made by one of the trolls

Yep, I'm aware of the posts, I just wanted to point out two things - that they were deleted so no longer a good reference, and the quotes around anti-AI trolls - which as you say, there absolutely are, and were in that original thread you linked - comes across as dismissing the idea that they exist.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

comes across as dismissing the idea that they exist

If anyone is getting that impression, then hopefully me and others talking extensively about them and their real existence, in the post text and in the comments, will dissuade them from it.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

I would hope so, but as we know many people dont read past a headline/title.

I'm just sharing how it reads when you put it in quotes. Like if I said:

Boy those people are "smart"

Wouldn't exactly come across like a compliment. So having it in quotes in the title reads, to me, like you're being dismissive rather than trying to differentiate users who got caught up, likely due to timing of their downvote, or down votes being their only interactions with a community.

Which, I will point out, takes some effort when its a small community, even on Lemmy.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Just saw your edit. When did MigratingApe do any anti-AI trolling? The whole point here is that random people are getting caught up in this who are objectively not doing anything remotely related to anti-AI trolling, hence the quotes.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Except there are plenty who are doing the trolling, and the quotes are dismissive of it entirely. Despite you noting that there are in your other comment.

When did MigratingApe do any anti-AI trolling?

I have no idea, nor do I care to investigate how a mod handles things on a small community.

Here are a few things we do know:

  • There are trolls harassing AI comms
  • Most of them come through and downvote heavily, or...
  • using a readily available tool to coordinate across multiple accounts, mass downvote. Appearing as a single downvote per account.
  • Some people mod multiple small communities, and will ban across all of them. Best idea? Eh, maybe not, but its their comm. People can always make another, thats kind of a major point of Lemmy isn't it?

The fact that there are people, such as yourself, getting so riled up over being banned from a community they claim to not have any interest in is also odd. Why would being banned from a community you dont care about even matter?

But let's not pretend there aren't trolls when there clearly are. This also isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.

Some people are just shitty. Banning and blocking are handy tools for that.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When did MigratingApe do any anti-AI trolling?

I have no idea, nor do I care to investigate how a mod handles things on a small community.

I feel like this isn't the post / the community for you then. In my opinion it is relevant whether or not someone who's being banned actually objectively did anything, and I feel like I'm not alone in that. But if you are convinced that it's totally irrelevant (and at the same time that what some other people did is super relevant), then I feel like we can agree to disagree on it and conclude our conversation at this point.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

I'm fairly certain I don't need to spend hours investigating individual actions to be a part of the fediverselore community.

So yeah, we can stop right there.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Weirdly this coincides with some drama on Reddit on r/trans, no time to do a rundown but the mods of both r/trans and r/AnarchyChess mentioned seeing an uptick in subscribers right before some of the r/trans mods decided to suck again.

[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"pro AI" people, centered around dbzer0 and blahaj,

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, maybe I was wrong. I thought there were some blahaj people in the grouping that was saying "yeah this makes total sense" but I don't see it looking back now. Maybe it was in the deleted threads or maybe (more likely) I entirely hallucinated it, I'll remove that part.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›