this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
196 points (80.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1152 readers
177 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.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- 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.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
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.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
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.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- 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 9 months ago
MODERATORS
You are already banning certain websites and not allowing others at the discretion of a rating system operated by a Zionist. MBFC is rated by Wikipedia as unreliable source. Yet this does not seem to bother your "factuality".
There are not a thousand independent journalists and news outlets popping up on Substack and people keep posting different ones. There only a handful actual journalists on there not writing opinion articles but doing real reporting.
Again, show me where MBFC says something is Questionable when they are not. This is the second time I'm asking you.
Also this one which really shows how Zionist the MBFC authors are.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/
Don't care. Show me where a source they mark "Questionable" is not, in fact, Questionable.
Mondoweiss – Bias and Credibility
Mondoweiss is a trash source, try again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondoweiss
In 2015, David Bernstein, writing for The Washington Post, called the website a "hate site", and listed quotes from Weiss that he said were anti-Semitic. This included Weiss' claim that "the Israel lobby ... reflected a contract the American establishment had made with Jews to drive the economy in the 1970s",[62] which Bernstein likened to a belief in an "Elders of Zion type group". It was also described as a hate site in the book Anti-Zionism on Campus by Andrew Pessin.[63]
According to Elliot Kaufman, the Vice President of Cardinal for Israel, a Stanford University group, writing in The Stanford Review, Mondoweiss "often publishes astonishingly anti-Semitic material, using classic anti-Semitic imagery such as depicting Jews as spiders, cockroaches, or octopuses with tentacles controlling others, and Holocaust inversion. Its hatred of Israel is as deep as it is vicious."[64]
Your argument is a Zionist writer writing for a Zionist rag calling anti Zionist Jews antisemitic?
It is clear you are not here in good faith. I will keep in mind you deem all criticism of Israel antisemitic.
No, I'm saying we aren't going to link to a hate site, and any site depicting Jews as spiders, cockroaches, or octopus is a hate site. Mondoweiss is a hate site. MBFC has it right, if you think they're wrong, then you might have your own bias issue to confront.
Where is your evidence? Show me the comic. Or are you going to point to Zionist hearsay blogs as your evidence?
Or you just admit you're supporting an acknowledged hate site. I'm not engaging in your sea lioning. If you want it, go find it yourself. I'm not digging through hate material for you.
Acknowledged by whom? People who literally ascribe themselves working for Zionist lobbies? Where is your evidence?
Is this antisemitic?
https://jcpa.org/article/anti-semitic-cartoons-on-progressive-blogs/
Is this anti semitic Jordan?
Or do you mean this one?
Is condemning baby killers anti semitic?
@jordanlund please respond I need to know if you deem these antisemitic or if you are talking about something else.
Maybe this octopus cartoon?
He can't. Even going through what MBFC claims is misinformation by mondoweiss only further reinforces how Zionist the MBFC site is and how little they care about genuine fact checking.
If they were actually antisemitic, why would prominent Jewish and Israeli anti-zionist historians, such as Ilan Pappe, have interviews and articles on the site? They wouldn't. Of course JordanLund also bans emancipatory slogans such as "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" as well. They apply more credibility to liberal Zionists than the victims of Zionism's ethnic cleansing campaigns.
Like theguardian? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
A UK paper of record?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Or mixed not enough for you
Guardian isn't "Questionable".
"MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY"
We'd allow that.
Which makes it dumber that dropsite is banned as it has a higher rating
Dropsite isn't banned because of credibility, it's banned because we don't allow blogs. Full stop.
You could be the most award winning journalist in the world on Twitter or Facebook, you're still getting removed because we don't allow Twitter or Facebook.
Again it's not a blog it's a news organization
This entire post is trying to show you 2 things.
1 just add it to the rules that anything hosted on substack is banned for simply using a tech platform.
2 it's a ridiculously stupid rule that isn't at all thought out.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
Irrelevant as they are a blog site and we do not allow blog sites.
But you're continuing to dodge the question, as usual. Your argument is MBFC can't be relied on. Show me an example of them being unreliable.
Specifically, identify a source they say we should remove that we should actually be keeping. 3rd time asking.
They're either incredibly biased or they aren't. If they are incredibly biased you should be able to prove that in short order.
If you CAN'T prove that, and it sure seems like you can't, then it's long past time you STFU about MBFC.
Define the term blog site.
You act like there is not an established definition:
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/weblog
"A blog, short for weblog, is a frequently updated web page used for personal commentary or business content."
The key point there, for me, is "personal commentary". That's not news, that's not journalism. It's uniquely distinguished from actual reporting.
So Dropsite writes personal commentary and is not an organisation employing multiple journalists. Correct?
Dropsite is hosted on a blogging platform that fails to differentiate personal commentary from anything else and as such, yes, we block that entire blogging platform.
If they aren't going to differentiate, then we aren't either.
"But, but, real journalists on Twitter..."
Don't care. Twitter isn't a source either.
Comparing a news organisation with a domain name which solely uses Substack for layout and a subscription model to Twitter is complete nonsense. Are there Twitter accounts with their own "MBFC rating"?
Your arguments are akin to claiming that wordpress websites are not real websites. It is pure gatekeeping and the fact that you even have to go against your own MBFC standards to enfore rules pulled out of thin air really shows you are grasping at straws here.
Wordpress sites are obviously real websites, but they aren't news articles.
If you don't like it, feel free to fire up your own community and enjoy all the blogspam that gets posted. (There's a lot!)
News sites publish their content using WordPress. Similar to how news sites now host their content using SubStack. It allows journalists to do journalism instead of webdevelopment.
This used to be a big gatekeeping thing back in the day, with people claiming that WordPress websites are not real websites.
I will take up your suggestion about creating an alternative community as you are only doubling down on your nonexistent rules.
[email protected] could be for you
The rules are simple, no social media bullshit. Blogsites are a subsection of social media.
No Twitter/Facebook/Youtube/Reddit, but also no Substack/Blogger/Wordpress/Blogspot.
Similarly, no self posts, no videos, no image posts, no shit posts, no memes.
All of this is clearly stated. Don't like it? Door is over there... ->
What rule even says "no news articles whose software stack is based on web content management systems"?
When I search "Youtube" or "Twitter" on MBFC, the website does not show up on MBFC. When I search "dropsite" I am told it is a news website with high credibility. MBFC must not understand what news is.
But interesting to know WordPress is not allowed. I do not believe anyone was aware of this rule before. Nor has it been enforced.
Also, I am still waiting on a response to your other claim. You cited accusations deeming anti-Zionist Latuff comics antisemitic. I have provided several examples of these accusations. Are you sticking to your original position?