joe

There are worse, imo.

user @snake posted:

Did you ever consider ceding ownership of the instance to an entity with greater legal capabilities?

In the end, it will not make sense to try to keep this instance running if the owners are unable to provide adequate service to its users.

and was banned for:

reason: Go get your service somewhere else

Definitely not a great look.

Uh, @[email protected] .. what's up with the banning going on in this thread? I noticed on a.lemmy.org that someone was labeled "banned" and their comment was simply "Ight, I’m out"

The mod note was "Let us help you".

There are more similarly weak (spiteful?) bans that certainly don't seem to be at a standard for a ban. "Litterally 1984" was another one. Is that all it takes to be banned here?

Edit: Many (all?) the users I referenced as banned are now unbanned from the site, but now banned from this community.

I don’t need anyone choosing for me what I should and should not see. I can (and do) do that myself, thank you.

I see this a lot, and first off, it's not true at the instance level, for lemmy-- unless there's a new option I didn't see. Second, having to block someone that suggests you should die for your skin color, after reading the comment, is not without harm. There is value in preventing the speech from being seen at all, versus blocking people after the fact.

It's obviously a generalization, but generally the people who say "just block them" are also people that haven't lived with systemic bigotry directed at them for their entire lives.

And for the record, I don't think piracy falls into this category of speech.

Was there some example of these communities violating the rules and the respective moderation teams turning a blind eye to it, or even just being abnormally slow to deal with it? Or were these communities singled out for the potential for posting links that infringed on copyright law? And which country's laws are we talking about? Were the respective mod teams and administrators contacted to work on addressing any concerns, or was this a "block first, ask questions later" scenario? If the latter-- why, and have those questions now been asked of the respective teams?

I'm just trying to understand the thought process that went into this, because from an outside observer, it seems like a knee jerk reaction. I know I'm just some average joe (har har), but I think blocking/defederating should be a tool used after dialog has failed, and not before; that doesn't seem to be what happened here, from what I see.

It's a problem of scale. If you don't defederate from a racist-focused instance (for example; hypothetically speaking), then you need to devote resources to moderating those users who make racist comments, as allowed by their instance, but directed at your users. Sure, you could do this, but it's probably smarter to just defederate and save the resources for other uses. And no moderation team is going to be flawless, so racism will still creep in and be missed by the mod team.

It might be a different story if users are given the tools to block entire instances (like kbin has) but even then I think the ROI would be low.

I know reading comprehension isn't much valued in some political circles, but I didn't say what you think I said, so I'm not sure you really mean "agreed".

Some moderation is required because an honest dialog cannot happen if all parties don't feel safe. This is not the same as "no moderation", but it's also not the same as what you pretended I said, which is "heavy moderation". I don't understand why you think this discussion in any way translates to a government, but generally speaking, the US government has less ability to "censor" than a non-government entity.

And, as I already alluded to, the result of lax moderation is bigotry and hate, every time. If I had to pick between heavy moderation or voat, and to be clear, I don't have to make that choice because there is nuance allowed, then I'd pick heavy moderation over a site infested with redhats and the like.

From the light googling I did, the military is less bigoted and extreme than the general population. So, while I would never suggest there aren't any fascists in the military, do you have any data that says there's more than a representative amount compared to the rest of the country? If not, what makes you believe that the military is pro-fascism?

Yeah, I read along in that thread. So you guys weren't contacted by anyone from the admin team on lemmy.world before this decision was made? Or the mods of the specific community?

I totally get the fine-line that (pro) piracy communities have to walk, but as long as they're doing a best effort to moderate to their own stated rules of no direct links to copyright infringing content, then I don't see why the community should be banned. Just my opinion.

This should have been my comment, bro (lol):

It is my experience that school administrators can be quite illogical.

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

[blahblahblah the rest of my comment here.]

Keep digging that hole haha.

An instance with no defederation policy is going to end up exactly like an instance with no moderation policy. It's going to become Voat or whatever the latest far-right website is these days.

You might be better served to seek out an instance with a transparent defederation policy, and admins that use it as a tool of last resort, instead of first resort. I was, perhaps mistakenly, under the impression that lemmy.world fit that bill, but maybe not so much.

I didn't grab the "wrong" quote-- I neglected to grab a quote at all. Oh no, did I do something wrong again by correcting you? haha

I get that, but what images would be of concern in a piracy-focused community?