I am requesting an admin review of the moderation actions of Decoy321@lemmy.world in:
[!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world](/c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world)[!shitposts@piefed.world](/c/shitposts@piefed.world)
Specifically, I am requesting review of two bans imposed on me, removal of the characterization of my posts as racist where no reasonable basis for that characterization exists, and review of whether Decoy321 should continue moderating these communities.
Context
These are shitposting communities. Merriam-Webster defines shitpost as:
“to post something online (such as a comment, video, or meme) that is deliberately absurd, provocative, or offensive”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shitpost
Provocative or offensive humor is therefore not, by itself, evidence that content is racist, harassing, or otherwise prohibited. Obviously, shitposting does not override an instance's rules against genuinely racist or abusive content, but moderation should distinguish between those things.
First ban - 
I had been actively contributing memes to [!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world](/c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world), including reposting content from Reddit's /r/shitposting.
After dozens of contributions, Decoy321 banned me for one week over this post:
https://thelemmy.club/post/53660620
The reason given was:
rule 1 violation. don't post racist shit. take a week off
The same meme remains publicly available on /r/shitposting:
https://www.reddit.com/r/shitposting/comments/1vc34os/cueta_spain_right_now/
I dispute the moderator's characterization of this post as racist. More importantly, I would like the admins to review the post themselves and determine what specific element of the content constitutes racism under the community or instance rules.
Calling a user racist or their contributions “racist shit” is a serious characterization. It should have an identifiable factual and rules-based basis rather than simply reflecting a moderator's personal interpretation of provocative humor.
Second ban - 
After the first incident, I began contributing to [!shitposts@piefed.world](/c/shitposts@piefed.world).
At the time, this was a very low-activity community, averaging roughly one post per week. I made a substantial effort to contribute content and help build activity there.
I did not initially realize that Decoy321 also moderated this community.
After what became hundreds of contributions, Decoy321 permanently banned me following this post:
https://thelemmy.club/post/54265031
The same post was publicly available on /r/shitposting when I reposted it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/shitposting/comments/1vlso8s/_/
This time I received a permanent community ban without an explanation identifying what rule the post violated or why a permanent ban was warranted.
I am asking the admins to review both the content itself and the proportionality of that action.
Why I am requesting moderator review
My concern isn't simply that I disagree with two moderation decisions.
There appears to be a pattern in which an active contributor is subjected to increasingly severe sanctions based on a moderator's subjective interpretation of shitposting content, without a clear connection to the communities' published rules.
A moderator is obviously entitled to remove content that violates community rules. But removing a questionable post is very different from repeatedly banning an active contributor - and ultimately permanently banning them - without clearly identifying the rule violation warranting that escalation.
This is particularly concerning for [!shitposts@piefed.world](/c/shitposts@piefed.world), which already has very little activity. Removing prolific contributors through unexplained permanent bans actively works against building a healthy community.
I am not asking admins to agree with every meme I've posted. I am asking for consistent, rules-based and proportionate moderation.
If either post violates a specific rule, I would like that rule and violation explained. If it does not, then the resulting bans should not stand.
Requested resolution
I respectfully request that the Lemmy.world/PieFed.world administration:
- Review and reverse my permanent ban from
[!shitposts@piefed.world](/c/shitposts@piefed.world)if the admins determine that the cited post did not justify that sanction. - Review Decoy321's moderation history involving my account, including the earlier ban from
[!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world](/c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world). - Review whether Decoy321 should continue serving as a moderator of
[!shitposts@piefed.world](/c/shitposts@piefed.world)and[!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world](/c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world)given the pattern described above. - Remove or correct moderation records characterizing my content as racist if the administration determines that the posts did not violate rules prohibiting racist content.
- Clarify what specific community or instance rules justified these actions if the administration determines that the bans were appropriate.
I am happy to accept moderation when I actually violate a published rule. What I am objecting to is being labeled as posting racist material and ultimately permanently excluded from a community based on standards that do not appear in its rules.
I would appreciate an independent review by an administrator rather than another decision by the moderator whose conduct is the subject of this complaint.
cc: @ieh@lemmy.world
Okay, consultation with admins completed, thank you for your patience.
First of all, thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
After reviewing the two posts in question, as well as a number of your other posts and comments, I have concerns about a few more of your posts and comments beyond those two posts. Were I a moderator in that subreddit, I would have removed rather a lot more.
The two posts removed are unquestionably offensive. One depends on viewing immigrants as dehumanized invaders, and the other uses the offensive "R" word that is ableist.
Moderators are not required to give warnings in lieu of bans or tempbans. The seven day tempban was your warning.
The moderator was well within their rights on both actions taken.
In addition, I saw a number of comments that I would have absolutely removed as uncivil, but the moderator makes those calls.
While it is true that there are not formal rules against things such as racist content, and it is also true that moderators are encouraged to note which rule(s) violated when removing content, simple common sense comes into play here.
While I didn't read every single comment extremely deeply, I would like to note that the liklihood of reddit provocateurs trying to push people back into using reddit is vanishngly small.
I would also like to mention that what is tolerated on one social media platform is not necessarily tolerated on all. Just because one doesn't remove racism doesn't mean all will so refrain.
In brief: While you may or may not be racist or ableist, that is not up for debate. The moderator's actions in removing the content and temp/permabanning was absolutely appropriate.
Thank you for taking the time to review this with the other admins.
I understand the decision, even though I fundamentally disagree with it.
What I am struggling with is the standard being applied here. You state that whether I am racist or ableist is “not up for debate,” which I appreciate. But at the same time, a moderator is permitted to publicly characterize my contributions as “racist shit” and impose a ban on that basis.
That distinction matters to me. If you're unwilling to characterize me as racist based on these posts, I don't think a moderator should be casually assigning that characterization either.
I'm also having difficulty reconciling the acknowledgement that these communities do not have formal rules covering some of this content with the conclusion that permanent bans for such content are nevertheless entirely appropriate based on “simple common sense.”
This is a shitposting community. The entire genre involves absurd, provocative, offensive and intentionally tasteless humor. That obviously doesn't mean absolutely anything must be permitted, but if particular categories of offensive humor are prohibited, I think those boundaries should be stated in the rules rather than discovered after the fact through bans.
Otherwise, we're effectively asking users to follow rules that aren't written down and allowing individual moderators to decide where an invisible line is.
That brings me to one clarification I'd genuinely appreciate:
If I create and moderate my own community on Lemmy.world, am I permitted to establish community rules that explicitly allow provocative, offensive, and tasteless shitposting - including the types of posts I previously shared that resulted in my bans?
For example, I would want to make it explicit that content isn't removed merely because somebody finds it offensive, crude or in poor taste.
Would I be allowed to post the posts that got me banned in my own shitposting community on lemmy world?
If that's permitted, then I think creating a community with clearly defined expectations may simply be the better solution.
I actually misspoke in my previous reply.
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#12-discrimination-against-minority--at-risk-groups
I had had an earlier version pulled up, or at least one posted elsewhere. I had thought I'd remembered something like the above, but when I couldn't find it, assumed I'd hallucinated it.
I saw your new community. It seems clear to me that the moderator there is gonna be an alt user of yours, which as far as I'm aware, is generally fine. So if that is indeed true, you would be responsible for ensuring that racist material is not posted.
Social media like Lemmy is not perfect or fast. We are all volunteers here, from admins to moderators. Moderators depend on community membes to report what they don't see; admins depend on community members as well as moderators to point out problems. So just because not everything against the rules is removed does not mean it is not still against the rules.
I had actually quickly scanned posts in your new community, and I didn't see anything that lept out as racist to me. And indeed with your previous posts, it was only a few things that were problematic posts.
But to again explicitely answer your question: You are not allowed to have rules for your community that violate the rules of lemmy.world. As to whether you might fly below the radar, as it were - well, your chances were better before you got my attention. :) But this is not a threat of any kind, it's just acknowledgement that I'm more likely to notice your name around here, especially as you post a lot, and especially because the /c/shitposts posts have been taking up a bit of the queue in the "six hour" top posts, which is what I tend to browse most.
So to also say: I personally don't care one way or the other about shitposts. They aren't my thing, but I'm happy to see a lot of things posted that aren't my thing, that's the nice thing about a place that has many communities. And I tend to browse the entire queue because I like encountering new things.
But you've got to figure out how to not bring over and post stuff that is racist.
I think you misunderstand slightly.
It is not up for debate — that is not the debate we are having in this thread. It is not necessarily a settled debate, although I don't think you are intending to be racist. But it really doesn't matter. The reason I said that is because what DOES matter is that the POSTS you made were racist, and in one case I saw, ableist.
Those posts are racist and the mod was absolutely justified in removing them and discouraging you from posting them again by use of the tempban, and when that didn't work, the permaban.
Could they have done things differently? Yes - a weaker response you would have preferred, or a stronger one you would have liked less - both would be in the range of what's acceptable.
As it stands, they did not remove other posts of yours that are racist, nor did they remove comments of yours that were attacks on others (slightly higher in that link I sent than the section I quoted addresses attacking other community members). So in that sense, while you didn't get warned, your posts/comments were also not removed.
The best solution, in my humble opinion, is to try your best to follow the site rules.
I don't have a clear feel for exactly what it takes for us to step in when a moderator is not enforcing the sitewide rules, but in theory, at some point, we would have a need to step in.
Thanks, that clarifies the rules around my own community.
I think we're probably talking past each other slightly on the main issue.
I genuinely do not care if a moderator needs to remove an individual meme. If an admin or moderator looks at something and decides it crosses a site-wide line, remove it. That's not really what bothers me.
What bothers me is treating the characterization of these posts as “unquestionably racist” and then using that characterization to justify escalating bans.
The meme that resulted in the racism accusation came directly from Reddit and remains up there. I understand your point that Reddit's moderation decisions don't determine Lemmy.world's rules. But Reddit also explicitly prohibits racist content, so its continued presence there is at least evidence that reasonable moderators can look at the same meme and not conclude that it is obviously racist.
That doesn't prove Reddit got it right. But it does make me uncomfortable with the idea that Decoy's interpretation is simply an objective fact rather than a moderator making a subjective judgment about an offensive joke.
That's really the distinction I'm trying to make.
If the standard is:
“We think this joke crosses our line, so we're removing it.”
Fine. I can live with that.
If the standard becomes:
“This is unquestionably racist content; therefore we're justified in treating you as someone who repeatedly posts racist material and escalating from temporary to permanent bans.”
I think that requires a much stronger basis, particularly when the content is ambiguous enough to remain acceptable on another major platform with similar prohibitions against racism.
As for the comments you characterized as attacks or harassment, I would also ask that their context be considered. The comments you're referring to were responses to people attacking or insulting me first. That doesn't necessarily make every response of mine appropriate, and I'm perfectly willing to accept criticism for going too far in a response. But there's an important difference between someone initiating harassment and someone responding -perhaps too aggressively - to hostility directed at them.
And regarding my earlier comment about Reddit provocateurs: My point is - practical outcome of @Decoy321@lemmy.world style of moderation is indistinguishable from what a Reddit agent would do.
https://piefed.world/c/shitposts was barely active when I started contributing to it. I then contributed hundreds of posts and substantially increased its activity. Permanently banning only people actually supplying that content has effectively stopped those contributions and pushed that activity elsewhere.
That's exactly the outcome somebody trying to keep users on Reddit rather than building competing communities would want.
I'm pointing out that the effect of the moderation is remarkably aligned with that outcome: discourage prolific contributors, reduce activity in an alternative community, and make Reddit the easier place to find and share this type of content.
Ultimately, I'm not asking for immunity from moderation. I'm asking for some proportionality.
If one meme out of dozens or hundreds crosses a line I didn't recognize, just remove the meme, dont even need to tell me why. I can adjust what I post going forward.
That's very different from assuming malicious intent, applying labels to the content as though there can be no reasonable disagreement about them, and eventually permanently banning someone who was otherwise actively contributing to the community.
Malicious intent is not required. If a cop catches you speeding, they might let you off with a warning. If they catch you speeding again, they are probably writing a ticket. Or perhaps they wrote you a ticket for your tail light being out and gave you a pass on the speeding the first time, but the second time your tail light was still out so they wrote you the ticket for both. For this anaology to work, it requires a small town with a couple of cops so that one might remember you like that.
The site rules specify that racism is not allowed. You posted objective racism. No judgement that I can see what made upon your character. The moderator would have assumed that you knew it was racist, and so removed it. Giving a seven day ban is not unreasonable; even if I thought it was so, it is well within the range of actions that would require no sanctions from the admins.
The question of your intent doesn't arise, in the same way that the cop doesn't really probably care why the person was speeding. Sure, some edge cases, but most speeders pulled over just decided to go fast.
So you keep taking personal offense where none was offered. The moderators addressed the content posted correctly and said nothing about you as a person. You are "someone who has posted racist content" simply because you have literally posted racist content.
Posting lots of content that breaks the rules does not justify breaking the rules in the same way that driving the speed limit most of the time doesn't give you a free pass to speed occasionally.
And I will say it again:The opinions of anyone on reddit do not matter here. You will absolutely see rule-breaking content on every single platform.
If you are unable to determine what is racist, one thing you can do is run it through AI. AI sucks for many reasons, but this is one area in which it can excel.
For example, I uploaded the image of the twitter conversation that was "Protect Black Men" / "From what employment" and asked:
I phrased it that way so it wouldn't prejudice the answer towards it being racist. Here's the reply:
So even if you don't think it's racist, AI correctly identified that it was.
So the simple situation here is that posting images that break site terms will get the post removed, and can result in temporary or permanent bans from a community. If the behaviour was egregious enough and got attention from the admins, it could result in an instance ban from lemmy.world.