A link to the original post.

And a screenshot of said post along with top comments:

Rules listed as broken:

• Rule 4 (chiliedogg): "No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or ‘wasted votes on 3rd party’ is lessor evil rhetoric." (Note: they mean "lesser-evil" rhetoric, as in an appeal to "vote for the lesser evil" in a first-past-the-post system.)
• Rule 6 (me): "Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, ‘paid by Putin,’ Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming."

"Homophobia"

Addressing this upfront because it makes no sense: I can't tell where the "homophobia" claim came from. None of my three comments in that thread (shown below) contain anything even pertaining to sexuality, so I was baffled seeing this.

Grasping at straws, my only guesses are that @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml:

• (Charitably) Doesn't know what the word "meatpuppet" means and didn't bother to take three seconds to check. (In case you don't want to check, it's a person with no agency of their own controlled by somebody else as a front.)
• (Less-than-charitably) Didn't think I'd retain the evidence and wanted to throw a little libel into the mod log, as a treat.

Comments

Note: the article I linked to in the hypertext "Putin's meatpuppet" was a current news story from the Associated Press titled "Trump strikes deal with Putin to get diesel in sharp reversal of US policy weeks before midterms", wherein Trump struck a deal with Russia to buy 500,000 tons of diesel, with even more in the future.

Note 2: NoneOfUrBusiness' comment changes between the first and second images due to a ninja edit, which I point out.

Context: the OP, K1nsey6, is one of three moderators of this community and thus makes and enforces these rules.

chiliedogg's comment

chilliedogg isn't even criticizing third-party votes. They're literally just still calling Democrats the "frustratingly slow option" (the exact phrasing of the post) while (correctly) calling Republicans the "we're gonna piss in your mouth and poke you in the eye with needles" option. This challenge alone to the post – the act of simply saying the US' fascist far-right are worse than the post claims while not arguing the assessment of the Democratic Party in any way – is enough to warrant a comment removal.

That is, the act alone of making Republicans seem considerably worse than Democrats – without any reference to third-party voting or even directly advocating voting for Democrats – is treated as a Rule 4 violation, which significantly bolsters my point below that what I was saying was true.

This is an obvious abuse of Rule 4, even accounting for the vague and repressive way it's already written.

My comments

I never stated or even implied in this thread that got me banned that the OP was paid by anyone, a tankie, a bot, or was otherwise doing this as some sort of larger operation coordinated with others. I stated that the OP was acting in the interests of Republicans, whose de facto party leader has been acting in the interests of Vladimir Putin. Co-moderator BrainInABox's response to criticism of the Republican Party above is obvious evidence of this.

The rule is used as a catch-all to remove criticism of the community's function as propaganda useful to authoritarian regimes like Russia, where the "etc." is a baked-in "remove any criticism whatsoever if I feel like it" clause. The community is functionally an island of lemmy.ml – if that connection wasn't obvious by the link to "Audiobooks Read by Dessalines [lemmy.ml administrator]" in the community's sidebar.

And if you think the part of the rule that I violated is "Be civil in comments", well boy, do I have a screenshot for you:

And a link to that exchange.

For context, again, K1nsey6 is a moderator, and notably, this comment is over two days old. Moreover, the comment below Doc_Crankenstein's was removed, so this thread clearly wasn't somehow sacred or missed by the moderators. A moderator read a comment where they were told "No shit sherlock [...] I'M FUCKING AGREEING WITH YOU!" then asked if they could "not be a cunt for like 5 minutes [...] instead of arguing with your own imagination" and then called a "fuck face" with basically nothing else of substance and either thought that didn't violate Rule 6 or didn't care.

So I'm going to venture a guess that if this passes as "civil", my pretty plain statement that K1nsey6 is running interference that helps Republicans should be considered downright pleasant and affectionate. (But in reality, it's pretty obvious that the fact they agreed with the moderator, regardless of civility, is what saved them.)

Edit: K1nsey6 replied to one of my comments in that thread a couple minutes after I posted this. This is their personal interpretation of "Be civil in comments":

Conclusion

I believe I deserve to be unbanned and my comments and chiliedogg's comment reinstated. Even under rules designed solely to stifle legitimate criticism, our comments weren't doing anything wrong.

What I'd like most, though, given it seems like the moderators designed the space expressly to power trip, is to bring this abuse of power out in the open, because this is clearly the norm for this community. They don't actually care about what their rules say (e.g. "Be civil in comments"); they exist as "rules for thee, not for me" in order to remove whatever they want.

I compiled these screenshots because I had a sneaking suspicion some excuse would be conveniently found to remove them and wanted a means to be able to defend myself from a one-sided narrative. Although I'm especially glad I did because I didn't in my wildest dreams think "homophobia" would be one of them. In the charitable interpretation (above), it's extremely sloppy, and in the uncharitable one, it's disgraceful and abusive libel.

pathetic behaviour really. didnt realise the mod was a nazi simp.

permaban me you absolute clown. if you want nazi comics on your community, i dont want to be part of it.

@NoraLenderbee@lemmy.today

“reddit agent” - pathetic. calling out a nazi makes me a reddit agent? 🤡

and im not the only one. @NoraLenderbee@lemmy.today is banning anyone calling out stonetoss as a nazi.

https://lemmy.world/post/52911167

I caught a mod at Late Stage Capitalism admitting they aren't from the US, so they deleted all my posts and banned me.

I was banned for supporting the right of people in eastern Ukraine for not wishing to be part of the state banning their language and doing g pogroms not just against Russians bot Jews and Roma people for 12 years prior to the Russian intervention.

Tanuki was banned just for posting a video of civilians being kidnapped off the street to be forced into a war they know is a lost cause.

If this is what you call Anarchism I am ashamed of you.

Buddy won't admit that a bunch of fascists are just bad at collecting data 🤷🏻‍♂️

What do you guys think.

The post in question

Thread: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76160990

Bans:

Comments posted just before the bans:

And the comment I was replying to:

This is going to be a fun one.

So here are the facts:

I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:

Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.

The next day I discovered I'd been banned from that community for "pro-incest comments" and several others I don't think I've ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.

You can see those here:

Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.

My comments had none of those things. I'd even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.

Now, I'm not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.

I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.

I've been posting things that Ethan Klein (host of the H3H3 Podcast) has said and done into the H3H3 Podcast community and the mod decided that relevant content wasn't good enough to participate.

I'll take my community ban and won't fight it, but it's the very definition of petty mod behavior.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/66840884

Mod: @surfrock66@lemmy.world

This was the comment that got me banned:

I clearly know enough about Ethan Klein and the H3H3 Podcast to be a participant in some form.

If what I’m posting is the truth, why is it such a problem to post it here? Doesn’t Ethan stand by what he says and does?

Just happened to check the modlog right after it happened. Weirded me out to see my username at the top.

Because I so rarely downvote posts, I remembered the one: https://lemmy.today/post/59636388

I downvoted it because there was no context, just a list of names. No evidence. No nothing. It looks like harassment or trying to inspire a brigade.

I'd take it up with the mod but the strange callout list without context + OP's extended modlog makes them someone I don't want to DM.

In case it wasn't obvious from my post history, no I'm not a zionist and I don't defend zionists.

I even upvoted one of their recent posts! I'm gonna go take that vote back right now.

I just noticed this randomly, because I wasn't able to vote on a post.

My guess: Someone didn't like that I am also subscribed to anti-AI communities.

@notwesker@lemmy.sdf.org aka @FiniteBanjo@feddit.online banned me for a whole week from Mod Abuse Hotline for asking a clarifying question about the verbiage OP was using.

I was very clear that I was so sorry for what happened to OP, but didn't understand what I perceive to be a double-negative that they were using. I even clarified that I wasn't victim blaming or having a threatening aura.

What does the mod do? They ban me for a week, but not even for an actual rule violation. They used a very stale and unfunny meme!

I've never used this com before, so I'm not familiar with your acronyms. So, I guess AITA?

EDIT: 1 business week, not a whole week

1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world

2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?

Ban & comment removal.

3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

📑

4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).

5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

I commented that I am not sure @arlesh@lemmy.world even verified the story is even real. Instead of proving me with another source that the story is real, I was deemed a troll, banned, and all my comments removed. If this is how criticism is remedied, I am not sure what I want fixed.

facts are uncivil now?

1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

idk, lemmy.ml mod account

1. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?

community ban, removed comments

1. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

above

1. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).

above

1. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

it's just pointing out that the soviet union was not a perfectly fair socialist democracy as they think it was, I'd appreciate an unban

Anyone have any clue what this is about?

Apparently someone banned me from "Fuck AI Alcoholic Psychos@sh.itjust.works" a couple of weeks ago.

Just looking through the modlog on lemmy.world out of interest. 21 pages of me being banned. Never even noticed until now.

If this is someone vulnerable, I'll be happy to delete this post.

TLDR: Don't even want anything done about it. Just confused and wondering what happened.

I'm guessing that I was banned for recent, scientifically accurate statements about "AI" despite a long history of posting in the comm. As someone who doesn't believe in "AI", I think that a great portion of "anti-AI" sentiment is misguided at best and most often feeding the grift. I think it's really sad how people who supposed oppose "AI" constantly feed the hype through anthropomorphism, absurd claims/beliefs, etc. Perhaps more importantly, if you're more upset by people generated images of witches than by genocide, surveillance, etc., then you're part of the problem. TBH technology is always corrupted by capitalism and nothing special is really happening with "AI" apart from the massive grift. The comm seems like a lib space mostly for promoting phony "AI" press releases. I'm not surprised that I was banned for my thought crimes. "AI" doesn't exist and I'm not sorry about it. But that comm is the real booster. Rife with pseudo-science and anthropomorphism. That's why liberal resistance is not actually resistance. These people are going to be crying about witch pictures while being dragged off to prison during an "AI" raid...

• Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

A mod in !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone

• What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?

Deleted comment comment on Healthy ruleationships in 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Reason: Rude and excessively confrontational × 32

• Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entries (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.

Removal of a very cordial & jovial explanation of my anarchist stance regarding monogamy was misread as “rude and confrontational.” I ended conversations respectfully, not expecting backlashes of monogamists in what I thought was a very sarcastic post “Healthy ruleationships.” All I want is the comments returned. The thread can stay locked if the community wishes, and I will not engage in it anymore.

That is all.

Post link: Is New York Times transphobic? @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world elaborating on why i was asking for confirmation in the post

how come most of their trans related opinion articles rarely invite a trans to get more of a trans perspective? for context, Media Matters and FAIR both have found that the vast majority of articles they published contained misinformation or outright harmful rhetoric against the trans community and over 130 articles on trans issues, and only quoted trans people in 14 of them also when the infamous US v. Skrmetti Supreme Court decision happened, which ruled that Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care is legal, cited the Times 29 times in justifying their decision

how is this post promoting an agenda?

I'm not a troll, I just call other people out for their BS.

I think most of lemmy.today is bad faith astroturfing.

This is not the first time !PapaSkwat@lemmy.today has preemptively banned me from a community I'm pretty sure I've never interacted with.

This is a warning for others. Do not assume posts on Lemmy.today are real or in good faith.

Here is a related post with similar circumstances.

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/57218230

Original Post (by mod !Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus): https://lemmy.ml/post/51590161

My comment that got me banned:

Remind me which nations have their capitalists leashed and which nations are leashed by their capitalists again?

Mod's response:

China Tobacco is so powerful it prevented the CCP from instituting smoking bans for years, all because it pays for the entire Chinese military budget. get the fuck out of here with that capitalist propaganda bullshit, campist.

My response I would have posted:

What in your view is the correct alternative to "campism"?

Also, your counterexample is literally a state-owned enterprise? Doesn't sound like unleashed Capital to me.

I don't think there is any rule in the sidebar that could be stretched to justify the ban.

My final thought is:

We share the same anti-imperial goals. I think your side should consider whether you have been duped by the very state powers you live under into hating the nations that should be your greatest allies in the fight.

P.S.S.

I don't have to agree with everything China does, and I don't. I don't think they have a good tobacco policy. I think they cater too much to cultural reactionaries. I think they allowed 996/hustle culture to get out of control and aren't reining it in seemingly at all.

But if we're going to honestly talk about China we have to also address the industrial/economic "miracle", the elimination of homelessness and extreme poverty, world-leading education, and "whole process people's democracy" (and the extremely high legitimacy it has among the actual Chinese citizenry)

For a community that bills itself as

“General discussions about “science” itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:”

And is full of news articles explaining science, having a biologist explain the science of sex biology is not a right fight for a general science community.

It’s like 150 entries of the same claim.

The question is who did this strange act of agression and why did they did it?

Weird timing but this was after I rebuked imaqtpie the second admin of sjw for being transphobic.

Rimu not simply happy with deleting comments is removing entire users now to suppress people countering his lies.

Free speech is banned on PieFed.Social, only praise of dear leader is allowed.