Hi all.

First, thanks for reading. I'm not exactly sure if this is the correct location to raise a concern about a ban/deletion, but I guess it's as good as any.

So:

1. I dont know which mod it was. Log is redacted?
2. post deleted & banned from the [email protected] community
3. screenshot of modlog attached
4. screenshot of comment attached.
5. It was an appreciated post with 106 upvotes 26 downvotes at deletion and several positive responses yesterday. When I came back today (I'm in Australia so timezones..) the comment was deleted and I was banned - and several negative comments have appeared which I would have liked to respond to.

Original post: a news article about Proton Mail.

My post: Essentially I took the time to read the article and included the quotes of what was written by the CEO that was being discussed in the article - as many in the comments had surprised me by jumping straight to him being a literal Nazi. As not a single other commenter had included the quotes to discuss the source, I thought that would be a valuable contribution. I also gave my opinions which you can see in the comment on the modlog, the formatting is messed up so I included a screenshot of the (recreated) comment. https://lemmy.world/modlog/1347

What I didn't notice was that the article writer had omitted the first part of the Twitter post from the CEO in her quotation of him - so I quoted her, and in doing so missed the context that the CEO had actually started "Great pick by @realDonaldTrump" at the start - which does of course change the context of his Twitter post to praise. This was clarified for me in the angry responses. I would have edited my comment and owned my mistake, however stood by the rest of the comment regarding Proton's official follow-up.

So, is that deletion and ban fair?

Update 10 hours later: contacted a mod directly to see if i can find out more about the ban or perhaps get it remedied.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/31716642

Edit: There used to be a screenshot here. I messed up the link in an edit and don't have a local copy saved.

My comment was roughly 'It already looks like it might be better than things now, at least Biden never advocated for full displacement of all Palestine."

I had already seen half the comment section of the post with ban marks. This single comment copped me a fully-expected permaban. Unfortunately my comment doesn't show up in modlogs so I had to retype it more or less from memory.

The bloodshed:

Screenshot edited as per mod request.

Most of the banned comments are actually still visible. If you browse the thread you'll notice there's nothing particularly inflammatory or banworthy about any of them.

Best part, in the middle of all that banning, our buddy found the time to mod the one guy in that post who supported his opinions. Welp, another echo chamber in the making.

Follow up:

The mod posted in a similar post in this comm. FWIW, while I stand by my actions and opinion, I did msg them to offer them a personal apology.

Although personally in favor of Palestinian independence and critical of war crimes committed by Israel in its siege of Gaza, I attempted to explain in a back-and-forth discussion with a user (only afterwards learning was one of the community's two moderators) why protest voting in the 2024 election to "punish" the democrats in favor of the republicans harmed the ultimate interest of reigning in Israeli violence in Palestine.

To further emphasize the damage caused by such a protest vote, I argued that not only is Palestine worse off with Trump elected instead of Harris, but as are a myriad of other social issues. The other user disagreed, arguing that Trump's return to office facilitated the ceasefire, rather than my argument that Netanyahu deliberately delayed it to help Trump get elected.

After my fourth reply post in a reply chain that stemmed from my initial reply to the moderator's comment, I was banned from [email protected]. Having at no point advocated in favor of the violence perpetuated by Israel in Gaza, I think the ban was unjustified, and demonstrates a bad precedent for maintaining echo chambers of moderator opinions, rather than communities that foster discussion.

If I broke a rule, I apologize, but I'd like to know what I did. Yesterday, I posted a user-generated map of ICE agent sightings and Lemmy.world's automod immediately deleted the post and banned me from the entire site. I have no idea why that post, above all my other interactions with [email protected], warranted a sitewide ban. Is it because I changed the title to blame a vile subreddit when the map went down? I really hope it isn't partisan bias.

https://lemmy.world/post/24682724

As if we didn't already know. I didn't know being against businesses using slave labor counted as bigotry, though.

Context: https://lemmy.ml/comment/16281740

Okay, this is definitely a minor case, but probably still worth reporting.

Modlog is here, 17 hours ago: https://lemmy.world/modlog/3106

Link to the post content reposted on [email protected]: https://lemmyverse.link/lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36299751

That question is useful for most of the people, as LW hosts 36% of the users base, and most of the active communities (https://lemmyverse.net/communities?order=active). Removing it as a support question seems questionable.

The most curious thing is that I investigated a bit, as LW still allows to show which mod performed which action (that how things worked in 0.19.3), and that removal has been performed by a mod that literally hasn't performed any action in 6 months: https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&modId=45389

Not wanting to put a tinfoil hat, but it's still curious to me that that specific mod came out from a 5-months inactivity just to remove that one post highlighting potential issues with LW.

What do you all think?

Maybe squid got a new username and infiltrated another instance. lmfao

I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in [email protected] as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own "rules subtext", sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because "YTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebar".

The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word "false", and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say "most people seem to understand", which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the "the truth we all wanted to speak" remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with "I can spot rules broken by the other person’s thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mine" and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasn't there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a "fair point to be honest", the mod then delved into the concept of "unspoken rules" as an excuse for himself and said he didn't want to "rules-lawyer", which not only disproves what he said about "specific posting guidelines" being "in the sidebar" that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoples' word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypher's last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didn't realize it?

This idea of "unspoken rules" and "reading between the lines" seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether you're akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to ask... hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldn't read the "unspoken rules" or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an "unspoken rule" on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldn't it? Those are the terms.

I await your choice.

The moderators have a source blocklist in their rule set. Mintpress is not listed in it.

Link to posted article

Context https://lemmy.world/comment/14641595

Anyone, who doesn’t tread the „destroy Israel“ party line gets banned from [email protected]

Edit: although people here hate Israel and different opinions with a passion, nobody could cite the actual rule I broke.

Context: https://lemmy.world/comment/14613536 Screenshotted context just in case:

A user claims that the killing in Palestine stopped under Biden now. I point out that biden had full-throatedly supported the genocide for over a year. A mod deletes my post and says that biden didn't "state" (keyword here) full-throated support for genocide.

I counter by saying I consider sending billions in support of genocide counts as full-throated support for genocide. I also point out that I didn't say Biden stated his support for genocide and that he didn't need to outright state it because actions speak louder than words.

I receive a temp ban for that counter and the mod adds a response where they claim the weapons were "provided for defense from Iran, full stop." which sounds to me like actual misinformation because how the hell does bombing hospitals in Gaza defend Israel from Iran? I'm not bothered by their stupid opinion, but I am bothered that they are enforcing it through moderation.

I ran into a similar moderation problem on the Political Memes community also on .world, but I didn't bother making a post here for that because that's just a dumb meme community and I was better off just blocking it, but now this is concerning a world news community and it's awful to see something like this happening in a community that's supposed to keep people aware of the news.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and it actually is misinformation to say it's full-throated support of genocide to send billions in weapons to a country using those weapons to commit genocide. Please let me know what you think!

mod
Removed Comment Did nothing wrong by sunzu2 reason: Rule against wrongful advocacy
mod
Banned sunzu2 from the community Ask Lemmy reason: Will not tolerate blind alignment with Luigi Mangione expires: in 3 days

Alright good folk, what's your take here.

I don't expect this to play particularly well here, and maybe I'm just being conspiratorial, but here goes:

I banned [email protected] from [email protected] earlier today- he literally posted a matt walsh youtube link and was being otherwise transphobic in a space where that gets you banned. (link)

one of jordanlunds removed comments w/ matt walsh video:

spoiler

the reason I put down was 'trolling about neopronouns' I stand by that, it was violating instance rules and was unacceptable behavior from a moderator of another instance.

Shortly after that I got banned from [email protected] for 'trolling'. To be clear, jordanlund does not moderate [email protected], but the timing struck me as an odd coincidence.

The .world thread in question (link)

I was expressing my actual opinion/position on this, if anything the post I was replying to should be considered a rule 1 violation implying leftists are russian/under russian sway:

spoiler

The removed comments that I was banned (permanent) for were just me being earnest about my position, which you're welcome to disagree with.

I don't view protecting my rights as something worth sacrificing other people for, even if they're on the other side of the planet. You can be mad at me or hate me for that, but I'm not trolling.

People replying felt it was reasonable to call me an idiot for example, yet another example of selective moderation. on .world.

I don't have any conclusive proof that my banning Jordanlund and then getting banned are related other than the suspicious timing, I welcome clarification.

Anyway in the interest of neutrality and transparency I submit both my ban and jordanlunds for review.

update

Hello everyone,

This is kind of a meta discussion, so if it doesn't fit the community, let me know and I'll crosspost it somewhere else.

There has been occurrences of people making broad statements against instances, communities, mods or admins. As Lemmy's recent versions (0.19.7 I think) allow to see someone's moderation history in a click (see below), I tend to use it from time to time, especially when the person is targeting admins or not that are known to be level-headed and consistent.

If the modlog shows that this person is indeed known to be toxic or arguing in bad faith, I would then post something like "heavy modlog" with a link to the user's modlog.

It seems like this behaviour could be considered harassment by some people. On the other hand, it allows people to identify directly if that person is arguing in bad faith, the same way very new accounts get regularly called out on their account age.

What do you think?

(Note that the quoted bit I'm replying to ends after the word "...issue" and my words begin at "What a fucking...")

In roughly 30 years online, across a wide variety of communities on a wide variety of platforms, zero of them would have removed that comment as "trolling."

Except .ml, apparently.

As I'm having to decide sometimes on whether something is on-topic or not, and we can always make mistakes, I've opened a matrix channel for YPTB for meta discussions.

If you think we locked/removed your submission in honest error, please let us know there (instead of immediately creating YTPB about us being bastards! )

le matrix

https://archive.ph/y0nY3

Summary:

• Mod of an inactive community is upset that I try to build [email protected] rather than [email protected] and removes a comment encouraging a user to crosspost their question

• Mod action: https://lemmy.world/comment/14369112

• Modlog https://lemmy.world/modlog/4457

• They then come to the lemm.ee community and use incorrect data such as "this community has no posts by other people than you" (it does, 4 posts in the last 11 days, while theirs had 2 in the last month) https://sopuli.xyz/post/21608236?scrollToComments=true

• They accuse me to be on a "vendetta" against LW while I'm the main poster on [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] and [email protected]

• they try to bargain the consolidation of [email protected] and [email protected] , while that has nothing to do with the league of legends communities (television and showsandmovies were both active, here the LW version hasn't had a post in the last 23 10 days)

The whole post seems strange to me, what do you all think?

Additional context: https://fedihosting.foundation/lw-team/

The meme:

• https://feddit.org/post/6999727
• [email protected]

Post text:

edit: As I'm seeing a lot of worry about the impact this will/could have on the community, please be assured we have the same mod team, and will be holding the community to the same standards. the same things that were always allowed will continue to be allowed and the same things that got things removed before will continue to get things removed before. Lemmy.world admins have agreed to allow us to run our community on our terms. It is my pleasure to announce that effective immediately, we are transferring our community to Lemmy.world! This has been a few months in the making, so my entire mod team is already on board. FAQ: Why? That's a complicated question with a long answer! The primary difference is moderatorial and ideologial differences between my team and Ada's excellent team of admins. We are on good terms with Ada and her team, and have gotten her consent to do this. In addition to this, we have had ongoing issues with federation and moderation that has caused a subpar experience for many people on other instances. How does this work? Currently, as there is not an easy way to transfer an entire community (trust me, we checked), we are locking the community as mod-only, and moving our focus to the 196 on lemmy.world. For you guys, functionally nothing has changed. What about the posts? Well, we tried to transfer them, but there was no real way to do so without absolutely destroying lemmy.world's federation. For this reason, we are simply archiving this community as mod-only. Everything is staying up, you just won't be able to post new content. Comments are still enabled, so we will continue to check our modlogs for some time after the transfer has settled. As for the posts on lemmy.world's 196, we're leaving those up too. From this point onwards, all posts made to that community are beholden to the rules you are all used to, but anything pre-existing is getting grandfathered in.

IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE PUT THEM IN THE COMMENTS OF THIS POST, AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM. Once again, here's the link to our new apartment of awesome. (universal: [email protected])

FYI @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] and a few others

A rage bait post they just restored: https://lemmy.world/post/24282976. The initial removal was about rule 3 - no rage baiting. That rule has been removed.

Another rage bait comment against vegans: https://lemmy.world/comment/14535452