Unruffled [they/them] @ Flatworm7591 @lemmy.dbzer0.com

wiki-user: unruffled

---

Read more

Posts

856

Comments

1,041

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I think they could be summarized as:

• Opposition to any form of censorship and/or concerns about "slippery slope" of banning Xitter links - i.e., what about Meta links?
• It's important to be able to post newsworthy tweets in order to hold them to account and have a record.
• Concerns about fact-checking - i.e., how can we check veracity of Twitter links if all we have is screenshots?
• Some folks wanted to ban all Xitter links, including screen shots and xcancel links, for a complete blackout.

We've tried our best to address those concerns in the policy above, which is a bit of a compromise position that tries to take as many of these concerns into account as we reasonably could. But of course some are mutually exclusive positions, so it's not going to satisfy 100% of users.

Thanks for the question. The ban also applies to other Xitter-owned domains such as their photo blobstore (pbs) domain.

We had a total of 7 "vouched" for users (you can see this by hovering over the icons). Once a user has been vouched for, then they can participate in all votes unless that privilege is subsequently withdrawn.

That's not correct, see https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35650327/16002405

However, still agree with the general sentiment.

Your submission in "In which I post a graph showing some impact of disinformation on Lemmy, a propagandist disagrees, and someone else summons mods and gets the whole thing removed" was removed for "Anti-jacketing rule."

After some reflection, I've decided to remove this post.

The data from these charts could be explained in a number of different ways. Bots is only one possible explanation, so why jump straight to that conclusion? I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or elsewhere that Lemmy has a serious bot problem. So at best your conclusions are speculation rather than evidence of any disinformation.

It's also problematic from an Anarchist perspective to "jacket" people in this way. Just because someone may be repeating what sounds to you like propaganda talking points does not mean they are shills or state sponsored agents. They might just have a different perspective or political affiliation to you. These accusations only serve to sow distrust and cause more conflict between users.

So, unless you have the receipts about these accounts being state-sponsored actors or actual bots, then you should consider dialing back the accusations and rhetoric on this stuff. Because otherwise you may be perceived to be jacketing others as shills or propagandists simply because they don't agree with your politics.

I'm also concerned about issues of consent with the way you are trawling though fediverse data. Did you seek anybody's permission to use their data in this way, and then to attack them with it? I'm aware it's "public" data but there are still ethical considerations here that you do not seem to have given any thought to.

I asked db0 :p

I wasn't sure how many votes we would get for this first vote, so wasn't sure how long to leave it open for. I left it at the default of 7 days. But we already have a good representative sample of local users. As of today we've had 269 local upvotes vs 20 downvotes so there's really no chance at this stage of a change to the result, especially since we only had a handful of extra votes since yesterday. We also need some agility to make decisions in a reasonable timeframe.

Fortunately though, so long as we have an adequate sample size of our active users then we can be reasonably confident in the results, statistically speaking. But I'd like to make sure everyone who wants to vote gets a chance to vote, so I do like your idea of advanced notice :)

also that cat is entitled just sayin'

That seems to me like a wilful misinterpretation. And we have clarified what it means to you multiple times now, if you were somehow unable to get the gist of it from reading other posts in the community. I think there's plenty of context here now for people to make an assessment of whether db0 was power tripping in removing your post, so I'll leave it at that.

There was no "unspoken rule" involved here. It's literally the first community rule in the sidebar. If you're just gonna make stuff up about being the victim of "unspoken rules" then this discussion might as well end here tbh. I'll note that nobody else has misunderstood that rule.

If you didn't feel willing or able to adequately express your position in the comments on the original post then that's a shame, but them's the breaks. Being a mod is a tough gig. You've now had the chance to have your say across multiple communities. And the offer is still open to pin your response blog entry to the original post.

Ok I'm sort of following along here.

1. The initial messages here were complaints about me. Technically their feelings were hurt.
2. I initially went away to talk about my perspective. I wasn’t dissatisfied about that. It was Blaze, who is like the fediverse peacekeeper at this point, who told me to share it here.

Ok got it, so you were the accused PTB in the original post here.

3. Upon sharing it here, I was silenced even though it didn’t break any written rules. Which Blaze agreed with later on. I was told in the response to share it elsewhere. My feelings were not hurt, as shown by the fact I complied.

In what way were you silenced? Nobody banned you from here or stopped you participating in the original discussion according to the modlog. So no PTB there. In fact you were encouraged to simply post your response in the original discussion thread and db0 even offered to sticky it there so that it would get sufficient visibility.

But you wanted a completely separate post to complain that nobody took your side in the original discussion, and you didn't get your own way about it. But the best place for your response was in the original post, along with all the context.

4. When I complied, the mod of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com who told me to go elsewhere with it came to me and made a fuss. That’s where the rules were spoken about. It was that mod who told me he would rather I talk about it here. Again, my feelings were not hurt during that, as shown by the fact I complied about that too.

The so-called fuss, which was just responding to your questions & comments:

5. Here we are.

Yes, here we are. So let me sum up.

1. You were posted about in YPTB for banning people for supporting Luigi Mangione. The community rendered its judgment and most folks thought you were being a PTB.
2. You then wrote a confusing blog post about how you were right to ban those people, and wanted to post it in a second YPTB post. This second post did not meet our community rules and was removed. Those rules have now been repeatedly explained to you and clarified. You were offered a "right of reply" in the original post with a stickied comment. It was suggested to you that if you want to make the post, do it somewhere else.
3. You came back here to complain about db0 removing your (second) post, as db0 suggested you should do if you feel it was a PTB move. Unfortunately you then confused the hell out of everyone, me included, by writing about it in an incredibly confusing and disjointed way.

So the only topic of THIS post per point 3 should be about whether is was justified to have your second "right of reply" post removed according to our sidebar rules. Your assertion seems to be that db0 was power tripping by doing that.

I hope this clarifies for everyone. And I think the removal of your second post was completely warranted by the community rules because it was about you justifying yourself, more than anything else.

I'll just quickly remind you this is literally an Anarchist server, so it's unlikely you're gonna find much sympathy for your views here.

Many of us aren't based in the US. So when you say "the law" which law specifically are you talking about?

I honestly can't follow what your complaint is any more. Were you actually banned from anywhere or did you just get your feelings hurt by having your blog post removed from this community?

It's not at all clear to me that your original post of any of this post meets the Rule 1 criteria: Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).

CLM. It's not a support issue really, although perhaps their more technical admins keep an eye on that community so that could have been the reason? If they genuinely can't keep up with the technical demands of running a large instance then it's important to acknowledge that. Spreading the load across multiple smaller instances, as the fediverse was intended to work, might be a good way of addressing the issue.

YDI

The comment from @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net on your original post before it was removed hit the nail on the head imo:

I think the way you talk around the issue (e.g. “a man named after a certain plumber”) really demonstrates an underlying understanding that you’re in the wrong here: you’re avoiding direct confrontation with him and his motives in order to paint this as a simple murder. You linked to excuses about how Brian Thompson was actually innocent, because denying life saving medical coverage isn’t technically the same thing as personally murdering them, despite having the same effect. You paint agreement with his actions with pledging direct allegiance to him personally.

There are legitimate arguments around not lionising his actions (as Hexbear discussed at the time), but you’re just getting upset about civility and direct violence disrupting the indirect violence of capitalism.

Let's get real here. The State has a monopoly on violence in most countries. That's one of the ways they keep control of the population. That's why it's perceived as such a threat to the State when ordinary people use violence to challenge the status quo. The State made it perfectly legal for people to like Brian Thompson to deny life saving treatments and procedures from the sick and dying in order to turn a larger profit margin. That is an example of state-sanctioned violence. All those involved should be in prison and held accountable. But they never will be, because State is organized around protecting the rich and powerful from the consequences of their deeply immoral, unethical and (ought to be illegal) acts that turn a profit. Don't forget that slavery was legal and Nazi concentration camps were legal at the time. That's why your moralizing position rings hollow. Because all you are doing in effect is defending the right of the state to continue with it's immoral agenda of exploiting the sick and poor for profit, without ever having to accept any consequences for it.

When the justice system is corrupt, when the laws are written by lobbyists, when politicians from both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by corporations, what other option do we have to resist the abuses of the rich and powerful? This is why people consider Luigi a bit of a folk hero. Because he gave people a bit of hope that real change was possible, and that (at least occasionally) the rich and powerful might get what's coming to them.

On another topic, your original blog post was imo not in keeping sidebar rules, especial rule 1:

Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).

It seems to me you are more upset that basically nobody here agrees with your position on this topic, rather than because of any PTB issues.

Well said. I'll add that while I have no doubt some propagandists cynically exploited the genocide in Gaza for purely political reasons, Biden and Kamala bear much of the responsibility for adopting such an extremely unpopular (among their own base) and immoral policy of unconditional military support for Israel that was so easily exploited by their political enemies.

I skimmed through the article and actually wondered what the relevance was to this community until I read your spoiler. It was definitely misleadingly headlined and written.

Dbzer0 is stable, relaxed with the rules, and perfect for a topic like this.

Haha, perfectly put in the original post too.

I appreciate your feedback and will take in on board.

is that andrew tate's cigar shop in the background and if so does he become a leftist in the future?