• 8 Posts
Joined 8M ago
Cake day: Apr 01, 2022


I’m not a Mastodon/etc. users but I can sympathize with some other sites. Even here has its own Ongoing September from redditors.

I would recommend reaching out to moderation teams and raising awareness, because they probably have far more ability to put global notifications or sign-up messages, and to give warnings to uncomfortable behaviour.

Make sure to call out twitter carryover, in a constructive way, so that people are aware that Mastodon isn’t ‘twitter but here’.

Xonotic, STK and 0 A.D. have been my main 3. They’re pretty fun offline too.

Please the report feature to bring up troublesome users (or if really necessary, the lemmy.ml community), this community is for the software called Lemmy.

I think this is a really good chain of logic!

Not particularly. It’s literally guilt by association.

They make a good point about defederation not letting us ban them and therefore it shouldn’t be seen as a protection, but that user was federated with us for a long time and wasn’t banned. There were opportunities and the moderation team didn’t choose to. So I don’t think there’s an implicit ban-evasion element on a personal level, they were tolerated and if I remember correctly the defederation was due to antagonistic user interactions between the communities like vote brigading and troll accounts.

I wouldn’t be against the user being banned here for things like shilling and some of their comments here. But defederation and their activities elsewhere have nothing to do with it.

I don’t see the relevance of lemmy.ml being federated. That wouldn’t make it ok. If another community we federate with tolerated a couple of neonazis then that doesn’t make those users ok because we find the platform as a whole tolerable to federate with.

I think you have a valid point with the shilling. I agree with you there. It’s not bigotry in itself but it is abusing this forum to promote anti-egalitarian intolerance (which is undeniably and inevitably what that platform primarily hosts, regardless of its admin’s claims of platform neutrality). Plugging wolfballs is contrary to the stated purpose of this platform, and an unlikely but possible gateway to it gaining dangerous popularity. That is something they are doing here on their account, and I would support the rules being updated to ban it.

I don’t think fascism can be described as those behaviors, it’s an ideology.

Those two behaviors you described aren’t in isolation. Can’t a meme be fascist propaganda? Can’t a meme attempt to dehumanize or justify violence without calling for it? Is fascism only dangerous when it reaches the point of open violence?

I don’t agree with the line of reasoning that ‘wolfballs is fascist’, I think that’s ignorant of what fascism is and why non-fascism can also be horrible, but I don’t think the ‘it’s just memes’ argument is helpful.

It’s counterproductive to conflate racism, homophobia and transphobia with fascism.

They’re all disgusting behaviors. Make no mistake, they’re all mindless, anti-social, and dangerous. However lumping them into the term fascism trivializes what makes fascism in particular dangerous or appealing to its audience, it falsely suggests that fascism without those traits, a national fascism rather than a racial fascism (which is indeed what some fascists propose) isn’t reprehensible, and makes people who have seen a defintion of fascism think it’s just an ignorant slur just like calling any queer person a liberal, which will make people just not listen.

You don’t have to be one to be the other. They’re all horrible. Don’t pretend their problem is being a fascist; their problem is being a racist anti-queer idiot.

Well, how do the admins here define ‘leftist’?

That’s actually a major part of my post. We can’t recommend a better idea without knowing your own definition because ‘leftist’ is just so ambiguous. That’s why it’s a problem. If I know how you define it, I can suggest a few alternatives.

That’s an appropriate way to respond to a comment starting with “Imagine if you will”.

I think it could be an opportunity to clarify some of the rules. I’ve made a post on /c/meta about clarification of the term ‘leftist’ for example, because the vagueness can easily lead to reasonable, avoidable conflict.

And what if some anarchists here were uncomfortable about you hanging around lemmygrad and insulting them over there? Would it be appropriate for a mod here to ban you because you were associated with a community which has been known to make many leftists here uncomfortable?

The bottom line is you’re still able to create civil, unoffensive and constructive conversation here, despite doing things elsewhere that will make people here uncomfortable.

Well, that’s something that needs to be resolved, sooner is better than later, or it will lead to more drama later. Are you using your staff position to enforce personal opinions/preferences, or are you taking the role of a moderator enforcing site rules?

The 4 site rules here (especially #2) seem clear to me that people shouldn’t be banned merely for their supposed personal opinions, or what they do elsewhere.

True, and I would say that bumping with shitposts is abuse of that feature.

I have noticed some cases where it is possible to read a comment as either sarcastically humourous or sincerely insulting depending on whether it was voted up or voted down. So I think there is a real predisposition bias there.

‘This’ posting chains

I was thinking of mentioning those redundant repeating of a comment instead of just upvoting the existing one, but you’ve just brought up a more extreme version.

‘This’ originated on imageboards (or if not, some other sites that don’t have voting). A site with voting like reddit makes those one-word affirmation posts a complete waste of space, or a low-effort dog-piling joke at best. “I agree”, cool story.

My point is that “INVIDIOUS” is a very unhelpful title, and it would be helpful to edit it into something more descriptive and less clickbaity.

Since the technical questions have been answered, I’d like to chip in on the social questions:

[spoiler'd for being less relevant] >Very “free speech”?

Where is this stemming from? Who are you quoting? As you can see on their front page, they explicitly have rules against even things as simple as being unfriendly. Which is suitable to their goal as a community, which isn’t being some free speech haven like wolfballs.com attempts to be. They never claimed to value free speech, that contradicts their site purpose.


Banning people because you don’t like what they do on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT websites?

This makes sense in federation, where your users are interacting with content on those different websites. Not every site’s users wants to see the same things, and if one serious site (similar to gtio.io ) is full of people who think a joker is derailing a community with insults and poor arguments, and another is a comedy site and doesn’t see that low effort stuff as an issue and enjoys it, they can both moderate that user the way that their community expects. Serious people don’t flood the joker with complaints or get annoyed, the comedy site get to enjoy their posts. It allows different sites to collaboratively use a community despite having different values and different moderation policies. If your answer is ‘just don’t federate’, then we’ll end up with far more unnecessary copies of communities over moderation differences and a huge lack of content and interaction.

I think I understand and recognize your point about how blocking you for what you said in a different context (a site with different rules and people!) is unfair, because that blocks you from Beehaw communities where you would have acted in line with their rules, because it’s on their site and not the other less strict site. And I agree. That said, I think the situation of you or me being forced to register a new Beehaw account to participate in Beehaw communities is a more usable solution than Beehaw having to just not federate with most communities because they want to ban some people that the other communities can tolerate. When you’re here, other communities’ users are still seeing your comments, and they should be able to say ‘our users kept reporting you, we don’t want to see your lemmy.ml account’s posts’.

As a side note, please consider giving posts more useful titles, such as “Why is Invidious downloading so slowly?” and, since Invidious is a hosted software and not a single site, tell us which instance you’re using.

The word 'leftist' in the instance description should be replaced with something more specific

“Leftist” is not a helpful label here; its meaning changes internationally and personally. It was always vaguely defined and just became more vague and misused for the past two centuries. …


On the Necessity of lemmy.ml Branding Changes

I was looking at the Communities list, and noticing a few had no icon, I set out to design a few proposals, including a way to have different icons for Lemmy, Meta and Announcements. At that point I realized, lemmy.ml has no distinct logo. …


An exploration of the Lemmys, for discussion
What is this post?


What are some interesting/useful home automation and customization ideas?

Of course given that this is posted to lemmy.ml, I’m expecting a bias towards FOSS/etc. projects like Mycroft AI or towards DIY projects over Amazon and Google microphones and insecure IoT junk, but still list those other ideas regardless as the idea itself can be useful or even replicated with othe…


What are some examples of alliances/unions/etc. of Fediverse instances?

What are some examples of grouping in the Fediverse? This question is in response to a post asking about how to stop corporate dominance in the Fediverse, but unrelated examples are more than welcome. …


What are the benefits of federation between different site types? (e.g. Friendica, PeerTube)

Note: in hindsight, half of this post is answering my own questions as I explore this rarer side of federation, but there are still some remaining questions which I have highlighted. …