The mod posted something from substack, and I asked if they had another source not from the Nazi platform and was banned for trolling.

tw: death, blood, gore, irony

a bit of context

I posted an ironically edited Charlie Kirk shot gif, with what I thought at the time was sufficient warning and blockage, in response to someone saying we could ai generate a gif of Hitler's suicide. I was making a comment on how such a thing couldn't compare. All things considered I didn't think my comment was in that poor taste, especially given I was actively editing to give even more warning and barriers. In the end it's not a big deal, I expect no less, but come on, give me more than "nope"

Edit: to be clear, I never thought they were powertripping and/or bastards, this was just the most appropriate community for something that at the time I felt could use more discussion.

Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7 Rule 7

There are 9 rule 7s here and 4 of them are obviously written by communists criticising liberals. Rule 7 is supposed to protect the community from libs but the biggest turbolib I see here is db0.

Fuck's sake this is worse than lemmy.ml

Context: a thread about what instance to reccomend.

Turns out talking about .ml users excusing Russian war crimes and Iranian crimes against humanity is not OK in c/asklemmy. Nor is mocking defederated Hexbears on alt accounts who literally admit to sealioning XD

Seems a tale older than FidoNet, we must remember we're one take a ModGod dislikes away from GOODBYE!

Rule 7 of !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com is:

No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can’t control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

I think a community with an ideology is a fine thing, and rules that prevent people with opposing ideologies from taking over the conversation are a good idea. FlipAnarchy's rules 3, 4, and 6 are well designed to accomplish this goal and I like them. And I've even taken a little inspiration from lemmy.dbzer0.com when I designed My instance's rule 2, which limits authoritarianism on the site, sometimes in a way that ruffles outsiders' jimmies - I once got a 2 day ban from .ca for reporting a screenshot of a post by someone named "princess". I was marking the post for later deletion because we don't want content from hereditary monarchist users, and the .ca admins didn't get it. My anarchism was a bit too radical for them to understand.

Anyway, FlipAnarchy rule 3 targets "right-wing" and "anarcho-capitalist" posts. Good, these are well-defined labels for ideological opponents to anarchism. Rule 4 targets "redfash", which is a lot looser, but fortunately comes with a well-reasoned explanation why tankies are not welcome. Rule 6 warns people who aren't "anarchist", and again we have some well designed rules here, very clear on who they're aimed at.

Rule 7 is a bit different. The tone of this rule is a lot angrier than the rest, and it being the last, it's easy to imagine that it was written in haste after the community mod became frustrated by posts that didn't break the rules, but weren't welcome. I think it's time to give this rule another pass to polish it up to the same spec as the other rules.

Sentence A of this rule is pretty clear, so far off to a good start.

Sentence B... is where it all goes wrong. It's saying no shaming people for anti-electoralism should be obvious based on rule 6, which says it's an anarchist community. But I'm an anarchist and I don't see how this rule is obvious. I think there's a lot of ongoing debate between anarchists about when voting is appropriate and necessary. Sentence B continues by calling everyone who breaks this rule a "turbolib".

Sentence C says "you have the rest of lemmy to moralize", but who is "you"? Is it the turbolibs? Are anarchists allowed to moralize on this community? Are they allowed to moralize if they disagree with db0's personal opinion?

This rule reads as angry, and defensive, and targeted at a particular idea of a rulebreaker in the moderator's head. What are the boundaries of the rule as they apply to people who don't fit this idea? Anarchists like Myself, who are not electoralist, but are pro-voting? Unclear until we see the rule in action.

So let's see the rule in action.

Removed Comment You've got to be kidding me. The fact that an anarchist sub moderated by a libertarian socialist has that rule is really shameful and embarrassing. by Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
reason: Rule 7

This Guy doesn't look like a "turbolib" to Me, they look like a fellow anarchist annoyed by the way this rule appears to insult them.

Removed Comment "Dems never learn! That's why we need to withhold our vote to teach them a lesson!" by PugJesus@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 7

Okay, I know PugJesus, and he's no turbolib. He leans centrist on gender issues, but he's also done a lot to oppose redfash ideology on Lemmy and PieFed, he has a clear understanding of communist ideology and would seem to be exactly the sort this community should welcome.

Banned
TrickDacy
@lemmy.world
from the community Flippanarchy
reason: Too many rule 7 violations to deal with manually

TrickDacy moderates !fuck_ai@lemmy.world, a very radical community.

Removed Post Communists vs Tankies on voting
reason: Rule 7

Well surely a post that portrays communists and tankies as ideologically opposed must be anarchist! I refuse to believe the OP of this is a turbolib! (it Me)

I'm cherry-picking, to be sure. There are plenty of instances of this rule in action where the target was someone who I would be willing to agree is indeed a turbolib, even if I wouldn't personally use that wording. But this rule isn't just for them, it's also for anarchists who simply don't agree with db0 on the best way forward in our current political situation. And we've got Marx quotes to back us up and everything, if you really need to test our ideological purity.

So this rule should be changed in one of two ways: It should either be reworded to stop insulting anarchists and make it clear that this is a point the moderator is unwilling to compromise on, OR it should be revised to only target neoliberals, and allow us anarchists to speak freely on this debate.

Until one of those two changes is made, the rule is currently abusing moderator authority to present a personal opinion, controversial within the community, as the only truth of anarchism. And that's not very anarchist.

For context, I talked about on a gaming community, in regards to Discord's digital ID mandate, that its current CEO was Israeli (likely a Crypto Jew from what I gathered). I correctly pointed this out, and got banned temporarily from that community for racism (despite being partially Ashkenazi myself).

The picture here is from a now-removed post, which I have saved, thankfully, asking if noticing what your own ethnic brethren are doing is classified as racist. It was removed for being "trolling", though there seems to be no proof that this is the case. I was curious as to if this was the case, which was why I asked the question. However, since I capitalize my titles, I was classed as a troll, despite no proof of that whatsoever (and, it seems the mod who removed me from that community admitted by this action that I was being genuine with my question).

The post in question: https://lemmy.today/post/47486945

The thread is pretty self-explanatory. @JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social posts an comic about a character called Thorgal who finds an entire family who have been hung for poaching and speaks out against it. Johnny deems this "blockhead" behavior, condemning standing up for what's right when it isn't personally beneficial as "chivalrous Brainy Smurf". The criticism that this is a sentiment that benefits fascism is met with excessive mod overreach qualifying it as trolling and followed up with a 4 year ban. He then asks Blaze for help moderating the community and claims that the lack of utter sycophantic acceptance of his pro-authoritarianism is a sign of a "weird, toxic attempt to attack the community".

Is Thorgal a blockhead? Does JohnnyEnzyme demand bootlicking? Is using moderation privileges to enforce your own opinion a case of biased moderation? Is it trolling to suggest that fascists love those who encourage others to avoid so-called futile resistance? You decide.

Personally, I blocked this poster and community on this account before the ban was issued and have no interest in further participation, but I'm struck by attitude about resistance to injustice displayed here and find the heavy-handed response ironic and worth drawing attention to.

So for context, a certain Zionist Feddit admin complained earlier about being banned from lemmy.ml and they recently got banned from here for the same thing. But they were not banned from sh.itjust.works and made a post complaining in !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works, I'm not linking that directly they've already accused me of brigading their community.

Anyway I argued with them for a while and continued to shoot down their deflections and justifications (way longer than anyone should argue with any Zionist troll) and goat decides to respond to me accusing me of using antisemitic symbols, the triple parentheses. Now what I actually used were 3 sets of quotation marks but he said they were similar. And asked me to edit the post. What do you think?

Is he right? Should I edit the comment? Or is he just trying to deflect from my criticism by saying it's antisemitic?

No bans or removals have happened yet in this situation as of writing this.

---

Edit: I want to say, that the reaction to this post is shameful, many of the people below in this posts' comments are some of the legitimately most disgusting people on planet earth. Holy fuck I anticipated some nastiness but never this much.

I'm not making another of these posts and I will be reporting and blocking any of the dipshits who make accounts to harass me in my DMs.

Maybe I fucked up, maybe I was too harsh. Maybe I owe some people apologies. I don't know at this point and I suspect I will never know for sure.

Also if you came here legitimately giving feedback and not just bad-jacketing or harassing me. I thank you and the above message wasn't meant for you. This post has been brigaded and shut down by a Zionist troll harassing me with a deluge of alt accounts.

Adendum to my post:

I should've known better than to trust or listen to @goat@sh.itjust.works in any way... I don't know how I missed this but if I saw this before posting this thread I never would've posted this thread at all, because there isn't any logic whatsoever here, and any assessments of me or dbzer0 made by goat are being made in bad faith.

I assume it has something to do with the discussion in the other thread on YPTB. Still doesn't make sense to only ban me from one community I haven't interacted with in a while.

Edit: It turns out it is an instance wide ban on lemmy.ml. Some people have told me already that I should see it as a badge of honor. Honestly, I can just shrug. I don't visit lemmy.ml anyways.

This person seemingly did nothing wrong apart from having a lame user handle. Suddenly they are site wide banned.

https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=20350905

can anyone point me to why this would have occured and who can do this?

I didn’t even know the link was from .ml. I haven’t blocked the instance completely, just some communities.

Post: https://vger.to/piefed.co.za/c/fediverse/p/21296/piefed-users-surge

Link to comment: https://vger.to/sh.itjust.works/comment/23563769

I’m not sure if blocking them deletes their comments like the piefed code suggested, but I’m done. I don’t have time to deal with drama on the fediverse, and I don’t care what comes from this. I just thought others would get a chuckle about how petty this is.

In short

I got a reply from a prolific anti-vegan troll and referred them back to an earlier conversation we had. Got banned for "harassment" and "following someone around" when in fact they replied to me and keep following vegans around when they post against anti-vegan propaganda.

The 14-day ban and comment removals by @aeronmelon@lemmy.world: https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog/45638?page=1&actionType=All&modId=6106918&userId=18352111

And the posts in question:

• https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19014218
• https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/19014077

The comments when I posted them rendered as

Oh hey its you

The link is to a discussion which expanded is this here (The link goes to the comment with the highlighted star):

With background

The person in question is a very dedicated anti-vegan troll who is known to make non-sequitur claims as replies to vegans, in the hopes of roping then into a defensive position under the guise of "debate".

To exemplify this I engaged with them a couple months ago and got a perfect showcase of their behaviour. I had never used this and have never replied to them since then (at least I don't remember that I have and searching didn't turn anything up). But then when they replied to me yesterday I did. And got promptly banned for "harassment" and "following someone around". I messaged the mod who banned me to no reply.

Their behaviour is being enabled by lemmy.world mods like @aeronmelon@lemmy.world who will readily delete comments made by vegans should they dare step a foot outside of the norms of "civilized debate", like e.g. in the same thread (1) and (2). The petulant and incessant trolling by them is of course never subject to such moderation actions.

To any vegan comrades, do not engage this troll, you risk getting banned and your comments deleted.

Apparently I used wrong account to post this. Will have to switch accounts to my blahaj account on occasion to reply to comments, apologies.

!leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com moderator @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com removed my comment

or primaries

a spoiler effect happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating

Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.

This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We've already seen the consequences.

reminding that primaries exist & quoting wikipedia's explanation that in the US's voting system, voting for minor candidates spoils the election in favor of the major party candidate the voter opposes most. In context

the post is titled

Vote Blue No Matter Who

with my comment responding to the parent comment, which practically denies the point the higher comment is driving at that not "voting blue" can only spoil the election in favor of "the fascists". Ignoring the purpose of primaries, the parent comment suggested alternatives that still don't "vote Blue".

According to the modlog entry | Time | mod | Action | |

---

|

---

|

---

| | | mod | Removed Comment ![meme: bitches dont know bout my spoiler effect][bout] or primaries > a [spoiler effect][spoiler] happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating > Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, **thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win**. This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We've already seen the consequences. [bout]: https://i.imgflip.com/ab9g3o.jpg [spoiler]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect by lmmarsano reason: Rule 3 |

the moderator claims this violates rule

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of “Marxist”-“Leninists” (read: Dengists) (actual ML’s are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don’t just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

Somehow, straightforward social choice theory (a branch of mathematical social science) is "liberalism", "revisionism", or "reactionary". Is "1 + 1 = 2" equally problematic?

Maybe moderators shouldn't claim mathematics is ideology.

So yeah someone posted a video from a Kurzgesagt channel to mealtimevideos and i wanted to know if Kurzgesagt is still funded by Bill Gates (who is a supporter of the Trump regime and Israels genocide)

This immediately got me banned from the community. As the mod didnt even bother providing a reason i cant really be sure what the problem was.

Be respectful of other submitters and commenters. Personal attacks, hate speech, bigotry, etc will not be tolerated.

This rule would hardly be a reason because its not about the content, but the "submitters and commenters"

@geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml banned me from !ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml (permanently!) and removed my comment from the post, because I dared to note that there are protests in Iran and shared a link to a crimethinc article with voices from within Iran. They call it "imperialist propaganda" if leftist voices from within Iran are distributed.

My comment:

I get it that the western media narrative is incredibly one-sided, focused on ideological bogeymen and focused on getting the monarch back in power. But I'd like to point out that there is in fact quite massive repression going on against the protestors. Leftist orgs in Iran need international solidarity now.

Their "reasoning":

reason: Ignoring the post to spam imperialist propaganda

I don't think that person can be reasoned with if they call crimethinc imperialist propaganda, so I'm not getting my hopes up for them lifting the ban.

I also think that they might be a bit butthurt, because I called out their zionistic worldview (i.e.: that judaism equates zionism) a few days ago.

My favorite part is where they continue to argue with my banned ass, knowing full well I can't respond. The only way to win for them, I suppose.

Edit: Looks like there was some confusion regarding cross-posting in the original link so I'll just put the Modlog link here that displays the removed comment and ban, with the thread itself linked here. I'd rather add than change for the sake of the post's integrity and preventing confusion.

Today, i couldnt upvote a post from anarchymemes@anarchist.nexus so i decided to check it out on my pc. i noticed that i was banned from the com even though i havent posted anything on the com nor the instance. i guess the reason for the ban is that i posted a meme to different comm a while ago. The meme is homophobic but i didnt know it when i was posting it. After finding out it was homophonic, i added a disclaimer to my post.

i dont think i deserved the ban, and i want to hear your thoughts.

Seriously, what did I do wrong besides say "discriminatory"? I was trying to help my friend?

It was a genuine question believe it or not. And “yes” would have been sufficient.

Aaaaaaand I just got banned from NOT one, NOT two, NOT three, but four Lemmy.ml communities. Is this a sign I have to start studying and reading up on theory?

Also, I know some Lemmy.ml mods is gonna say that "you wouldn't get banned from these communities had you read your theory!" like they're teachers demanding students to eat their meat before they can have their pudding (because how can you have your pudding when you don't eat your meat?)

Now I support the idea of socialism (I'm more of a market socialist), and I'm NOT against the idea of actually existing socialist countries (ie: China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and the DPRK). That said, I think Lemmy.ml should be more open to different forms of socialism, as well as the Marxist Leninists who DOESN'T have to support Stalin (and his bureaucratic and polarizing practices while General Secretary of the CPSU) to support ML.

I am very bummed that I CAN'T respond in these communities - that said, I can subscribe to different versions of these communities that happened to be in different Lemmy instances (other than Lemmy.ml):

Socialism:

!socialism@beehaw.org

!actualsocialism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

!actualsocialism101@lemmy.dbzer0.com

!socialist@lemmy.world

Privacy:

!privacy@lemmy.world

Memes:

!memes@hexbear.net

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world

Lemmy support:

Someone should make another Lemmy support community here in this instance

I post lefty meme and was banned.

geteilt von: https://lemmy.world/post/41163572

Both mods are also moderators of announcements@discuss.online; they are admins, this is their instance, and they are engaging in vote tampering to boost their instance and its communities over the rest of the fediverse.

jgrim@discuss.online m_f@discuss.online

post: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/60933022

Sidebar: This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Aussie.zone rules:

Golden rule - don’t be a dick. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your grandmother, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn.
No Ads / Spamming.
Nothing illegal in Australia.

Hmmmm seems like some pro labor mod is doing some apologia for crimes that people hung at Nuremberg for.

Forgive me for dispensing with civility while hellfire rains down.

I would prefer this post be restored or the rules be updated for clarity