Comment by sunzu2@thebrainbin.org on Do you think the mostly limited range of political views is a *strength* or a *weakness* of Lemmy? (For example, in terms of attracting new users.)

Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.

(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)

Mods removing a disallowed viewpoint is something different.

They will only do that if the opinion actually resonates lol

Haha yes, that’s usually the issue. I talked down below about getting banned on slrpnk because of some things I was saying. The comment thread with all the highly-upvoted replies getting removed by the mod, and the downvoted stuff intact, is hilarious to me:

https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11895951

The same mod also had a habit of arguing with people, while removing their comments but leaving his own side of the argument intact. He’s still a moderator there. In my opinion slrpnk needs to spend less time talking about anarchism and more time embodying anarchism.

Removed Comment I am gratified by the rate of downvotes on this. Greta Thunberg would, I think, be disappointed and angry that anyone would take what she said as a justification for ways to help get Trump elected. Let me highlight the very clearly written part that you seem to have missed: > It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity. > > There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous than the other. If you want real positive change, listen to Greta and fight for change outside the system. If you want third parties, support RCV and proportional representation, to make them viable. If you want the end of the fucking world, then don’t vote, or vote for spoiler candidates within the current system that makes them unelectable. Edit: Formatting by PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat

reason: Electoralism, liberalism

well you did kinda invade their safe space with common sense ideas, shit lord hehe

“We’re anarchists.”

“Cool. Here’s an urgent problem I see for the world that I think we should work on.”

“SHIT COCK GET OUT DISALLOWED We don’t say that here. You’re receiving a gentle ban, to think about what you’ve done. Be better.”

That’s the current modding situation across any community focused on working class politics… as if people running them are not interested in helping the peasants.

Why would anyone act like that on social media… for free at that

Oh my god… This is spot on. I feel like everyone here is mostly larping.

This moderator behavior here is exactly what you’d see on reddit lol

I use solarpunk and disappointed that it happened to you. I felt like solarpunk was the best instance Lemmy has, it feels like it has the least amount of echo chamber. Maybe I’m wrong.

I moderate my own community in solarpunk and I will try my best to not be like the moderator you talk about

I think you will see that these accusations have little substance, are taken out of context and argued in bad faith 🤷‍♂️

What are you talking about… This is the experience of most of us that dare slightly disagree on anything. It shouldn’t be this way

All I’ve done is link to the comments section illustrating what I was saying had happened, had happened.

Here he is, arguing with people while removing their comments and leaving his comments in place: https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401/11894346

I have no idea why you’re defending this guy. Like I said, the communities that try to “protect” their points of view, saying that one viewpoint is permitted in their space but other ones are will get you banned, generally become laughingstocks over time. It’s very different from protecting against abuse or racism, when you “protect” your space against people who don’t agree with some particular detail the way some particular person has interpreted it, and appoint an arbiter of what are the allowed interpretations, to ban anyone they disagree with. I think you should abandon that practice, and the censorship of ideas you disagree with, if you want to say that you’re supporting an instance that respects individual human freedom.

I don’t really have a problem with you in general, I was a little bit surprised that you came out swinging to defend this moderator. Maybe this all sounds like sour grapes on my part, but that is usually the result of banning people for disagreeing with you. It sparks a surprising amount of resentment.

That thread is wild. I had no clue slrpunk was like that (I only go to some non-political communities on slrpunk).

I don’t think slrpnk is “bad” necessarily. The vibe I get is that there’s one terrible moderator who the admins are standing up for, because they think he’s an anarchist, and they’ve absorbed the general Lemmy dark pattern that it’s okay for a moderator to prune the comments to reflect only the “correct” ideology. But basically aside from that one bad interaction, I really have no problem with slrpnk in general.

We already explained in detail why we supported their moderation decision and you bringing it up again without providing the necessary context in which this happened is just bad faith shit slinging hoping some of it sticks.

That “explained in detail” is your interpretation. In most non-authoritarian communities, nobody has a monopoly on providing the blessed correct interpretation of what happened. I wasn’t even speaking to why I was moderated or the interpretations on the part of the slrpnk people that led to it, just what happened. You can provide your interpretation of the events and the reasons why I was temp banned, sure.

https://slrpnk.net/post/14823401

In my opinion, the broader context is that if someone wants to say their opinion, it’s okay if they disagree with someone. It’s not an “attack” and people don’t need to be “defended” against seeing enemy points of view, as long as they’re reasonable. You seem to have a different context you like to frame things in, where a post with 10 comments needs to be locked and half the comments removed if they are expressing an incorrect point of view. Like I keep saying, I think you are expressing anarchist trappings while violating anarchist principles in how you run your instance, and also creating a bad reputation for your instance, when you do that. You do you, though.

I know you’re not the same moderator they were talking about, but I just want to make you aware of this: https://ponder.cat/comment/1193264

This is not the first time this is discussed and bringing it up out of context is just bad-faith arguing.

I started out aiming to talk about the issue without reference to any past drama, but then someone specifically asked, “censorship from the mods, are you directly experiencing it? If yes, on which instance?” and specifically as related to anarchist points of view. Before today, I’d pretty much forgotten about the whole thing, but it’s a pretty valid and interesting question and so I sent some of the citations about when it happened to me.

I can feel through the screen how much you would like to be able to just order me not to be able to discuss this anymore, since my view is officially “incorrect” according to you. Fortunately, that’s not how it works.

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it’s related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

Do you think the mostly limited range of political views is a strength or a weakness of Lemmy? (For example, in terms of attracting new users.)

Fediverse

!fediverse@lemmy.world

Rules

Community stats

Community moderators