https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&modId=107790
Shouldn’t there be some sort of baseline of sanity for community moderators? This dude is straight up pushing non-stop propaganda of his flavoring and deletes anything that he doesn’t like of https://lemmy.world/c/latestagecapitalism the mod log is very transparent and if that’s not power tripping I don’t know what is.
This is both the power and curse of the fediverse: your instance is your own, but also everything you do is out in the open. There is no central authority. People can move around instances and communities (or create those themselves) if they feel unfairly treated.
The mods of that community don’t own .world do and they do have the power to remove mods that don’t follow general policy and abuse their power
Lemmy moderators are genuinely worse than Reddit mods and i think we need to step back and assess what we have created
They’re really not.
Here you can go into any community any make a post. On reddit try doing that with a new account.
Here you can see a log of what moderators actually do. On reddit you have no idea how much worse they are.
Not really. On reddit, you just don’t see what the mods are doing.
I’d have removed two of those comments just for attacking other users for calling them “tankies” and “cucks”.
But when I do that it’s because it breaks the civility rule.
This may be a case of the comments being removable, but the mod chose a poor reason to do it.
Cuck I agree should be removed, but calling someone a tankie is very different. It’s a term for a very narrow set of political beliefs. It accurately describes someone who claims be be socialist while defending authoritarianism and human rights atrocities.
It’s also, in this context, not being targeted specifically at another user, but in the abstract at the people making the argument in the post.
Call somebody tankie is against the comunity rules:
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or ‘wasted votes on 3rd party’ is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, ‘paid by Putin,’ Tankie, etc.
Soooooo…. In other words:
“Respect the wind-tunnel and preach to the choir or begone! There’s no room for disagreeing!”
They didn’t call anyone tankie - they referenced the type of people falling under that classification. Big difference from making an accusation.
May be, but “…what the fuck is wrong with tankies” clearly is not being civil in a socialist space (also rule 6).
I see tankie used far more as a pejorative Term for leftists (socialists, communists and or anarchists) than actually being used with any nuance to criticize authoritarian apologia One can draw parallels between capitalism’s failures and the successes of authoritarian socialist/ communist regimes without praising authoritarianism. One can also condemn authoritarianism while also acknowledging that one form of authoritarianism will be or is worse than another.
I almost never seen any moderates being called a Tankie. Only when they end up making apologies for said examples, or more recently for various terrorist groups like hamas. Granted, I’m just left leaning and stay out of economic philosophies but I’ve clashed a lot in political topics with the definitely Tankie heavy user base on here.
Moderates? you mean centrists? Leftists shouldn’t be moderate. A moderate leftist is a neo liberal and a neo liberal is a right leaning centrist pretending to be a leftist.
Also hamas inst a terrorist group its a liberstion resistance group. Israel was literally born of terrorism and nothing resembling radical islamic terrorism existed till the 1960’s before then from 1899 till 1948 we had the irgun hagannah palmach and lehi waging a campaign of terror responsible for dozens of violent attacks and murfering between 6 and 8 thousand Palestinian jews, Christians and muslims as well as british military personnel and other international citizens caught in the crossfire. Zionists are the true terrorists in this conflict. If you dont agree youre not on the left you’re a right leaning centrist making excuses for a settler colonial state guilty of war crimes.
Thanks for proving my point.
Not a fan of bringing up Hamas. They’re not especially relevant, because tankies and real leftists alike both stand united against Israel’s ongoing genocide and long-standing apartheid state. Hamas might use terroristic methods, but their cause is every bit as just as Irish republicans, black South Africans, and 18th century American colonists. Heck, probably more just than that last group, because the worst oppression they faced was a bit more taxes. (And I still think that their cause was just enough to be worth breaking free of the US through violent means.)
Every one of those groups used tactics that would be called terrorism today. And history looks back on them kindly. The smart thing to do is to be on the right side of history today, not wait until it is history. And the bare minimum you can do here is acknowledge that while it might be better if fewer innocent people were killed as a result of their actions, Hamas are, on the whole, the good guys in this scenario. And that, at worst, every action Hamas takes is one caused by Israel’s actions towards the Palestinian people.
I’m sorry but I’ll never look kindly towards Islamists & Jihadists who murder, torture and rape innocent people. There’s absolutely no justification for this, never, and I’ll die on that hill. You can’t call out Israel’s genocide while praising the other side, which wants to do literally the same thing - they just lack the means to do so. Their overlords in Iran show you how their state would look like if they were in power. Hell, Sinwar murdered his own people too, yet he’s the fucking hero?
Calling Hamas the good guys is just tone deaf and straight up deluded, but once more, thanks for proving my point.
I see tankie used far more as a pejorative Term for leftists (socialists, communists and or anarchists) than actually being used with any nuance to criticize authoritarian apologia
Your view is incorrect. It can be both. There are people who will absolutely use tankie as a generic insult for “person on the political left”. But it’s also a specific term within leftist movements to criticize specific issues with other leftists (I.e., defending authoritarianism, an either-with-us-or-against-us mentality, unconditional love for the USSR/China, etc)
One can draw parallels between capitalism’s failures and the successes of authoritarian socialist/ communist regimes without praising authoritarianism
This is very true. But, by the latter definition I gave, a tankie would actually not do that. We’re having a conversation that has been had thousands of times before by leftist people about the more radical wings within their communities
One can also condemn authoritarianism while also acknowledging that one form of authoritarianism will be or is worse than another
By definition, one who has that level of nuance, would not be called a tankie. Now, obviously a user can just use the term tankie as a generic insult for “you leftist”, but that’s when nuance comes into play. Sadly, we’re are talking about instances that are very much incapable of such level of nuance.
Those are my thoughts as someone who was literally a member of my country’s communist party and left that same party precisely because of the issues I mentioned within the second definition. And based on my experiences, instances like Lemmygrad are absolutely that type of tankie.
It isn’t necessarily my personal view, its what I’ve experienced empirically throughout certain forum based internet spaces
I’ll tell you, my “empirical view” is that I’ve almost (if not absolutely) never seen it used against someone who wasn’t simping for China—or worse, modern-day crony-capitalist Russia. As though anyone defending Russian imperialism against the perception of American imperialism has any legs to stand on from a leftist’s perspective.
It isn’t necessarily my personal view, its what I’ve experienced empirically throughout certain forum based internet spaces
Unless you ran experiments/collected data (in which case, I woul genuinely love to see that) to gather such info, your “empirical” data is just observation-based. In which case, it can be skewed.
I’ve noticed your account is relatively new. So of course if one were to hang out with centrists and/or on Reddit, the average experience would be unbalanced as the typical use of the term tankie would be viewed as “generic insult to a person on the political left”.
But on Lemmy I’ve noticed far more people using the term tankie accurately to describe a specific fringe of the leftist movement. The type of fringe that, for example, still defends the USSR no matter what and is incapable of criticizing authoritarianisms.
Having said all of this…welcome to Lemmy! Lol hope you like it here :)
I’m a socialist, and I’ve never been called a tankie. It’s pretty simple if you don’t simp for Russia or China.
I’ve been called a tankie just for referencing communist theory.
My sleep meds are kicking in, so I’m not going to be able to give this a proper response. However, I just want to put this thought on record in response to your question.
The community itself should have the power to override the mods - at least to some certain extent, IMHO. Each community should have a meta channel of sorts wherein issues related to the community itself are addressed, such as disputes like these. I disagree that some single person or small group should fully “own” the community, and those who’ve invested time in being part of it should have no ownership or control over it whatsoever.
This thought probably isn’t the best articulated, but that’s why I’m going to bed now. Gnite, and I hope you all have a good discussion for me to read up on tomorrow. Thanks.
I don’t disagree. I think what you’re proposing is indeed a more truly decentralized model.
But ultimately the real world is where we need progress and as long as the internet (and language as a whole) exists there will be actors attempting to manipulate the narrative to their benefit by any means possible.
I do think democracy can be subject to manipulation regardless of ones ideals of altruism. Sometimes people are not adequately educated and then their input into a democratic system only serves to harm the collective. It may be time for new models of governance within society and communities wherever they may exist.
I could see that, in general though, in my groups, ad hominem gets removed when reported.
But then each group is different. Still doesn’t justify the other 2 removals either.
There are no standards for comm mods. Hell, I hear they even let that PugJesus cretin run a few!
More seriously, .world admins probably don’t want to get into fighting over whether people can mod their own comms how they like. .world isn’t intensely ideological, unlike some other instances, so the bar for sufficiently ideologically disgusting moderation to be removed is much higher than on, say, Solarpunk.
Doesn’t that guy run some history thing where they inform people interesting history facts daily in meme form? That son of a bitch
It’s disgusting what people will get up to on the internet.
deleted by creator
Keep in mind that this community was created to replicate a community that was/is moderated basically the same way on Reddit. Mods on Reddit/Lemmy are basically dictators and they can do whatever they want. At least in this case the rules are clear–just avoid this community if you don’t find value in it.
Personally I think communities like this that ban or remove content based on genuine mainstream opinions and facts that don’t align with the dominant local narrative are of little value but that’s a broader discussion and would apply to many other communities.
“I reject your reality, and substitute my own.”
Obviously there are exceptions but the vast majority of moderators are fief lords stroking their own self worth.
It’s not really surprising when you think about the time they contribute, and the very few potential motivators. I think most people would enjoy moderating a community they’re passionate about but most people lack the motivation required to do it consistently.
I was really hoping it was a refugee community that formed from non tankies that were banned by R/LSC.
that’s some real lemmy.ml shit here
How are mods like this still allowed
Isn’t it the whole purpose of the fediverse to ‘allow’ anyone to do what the funk they fancy doing? ’ (within legal limitations, obviously I’m not apologizing breaking any law here)
I don’t know that community and have not much interest in knowing it more myself, but if someone was ‘abusing’ their moderating power in some community I was part of I see only two reasonable options, both starting by raising the issue within the community, discussing it with other members and then:
- If what I consider ‘abuse’ was pissing off enough other members, the obvious solution would be to deprive that person from their power… not by throwing them away or punishing them (how? In what name?) but by not using their community anymore. It’s Lemmy, it’s easy to start a new community with the exact same interest… but with a very different moderation policy (and a different moderator). There would be nothing that dude could do to prevent anyone from doing that or to prevent members from switching to that new community… leaving the dude alone.
- If not enough members in that community were pissed off by the way it’s moderated, or if I was the only one seriously annoyed by it, well, maybe that just means most members are fine with the moderation as it is and see no abuse in it. Then, the only question remaining to me would be to decide if I still want to contribute anything to that community?
I’m not saying that’s what you should do. I mean, I don’t even know if you just picked some random community to illustrate your point, or even if you’re a member of said community. I’m just saying how I would consider the situation.
Freedom goes both way: I can do whatever I fancy and do it how I fancy. But so can other people, even when I disagree with their ways ;)
I think instances that host certain communities have the responsibilty of setting a certain baseline for mods. In reality if a community on a certain topic gets big enough most people will join the biggest instance of their community of interest.
I think instances should be allowed to set their own direction but genocide denial is something I really can’t have. Most lurkers and regular commentors (even on something like a meme community) will never see the bias and modlog of the mods. In an ideal world your approach would work but I doubt it does in reality as some communities become too big to fail and become the default. The mod would have to do a lot wrong to mess it up after that
I think instances that host certain communities have the responsibilty of setting a certain baseline for mods.
Once again, that’s something I could vouch for personally but me supporting that ideal would not make it a universal rule.
I think instances should be allowed to set their own direction but genocide denial is something I really can’t have.
That’s the reason why no one is forced to participate in any instance. I carefully select the communities I’m subscribed to and read, and then my home page only shows what’s new from those I’m subscribed to. Good luck finding any deniers content in that (or whatever else outrageous content), of they tried they would not last long… thx to the mods in those communities not being assholes and doing a good job.
And we’re back at what I was saying first, someone needs to do the work of cleaning the room. And it can be a lot of work, so not many people may be willing to do it.
In an ideal world your approach would work
I don’t think it’s idealistic, in fact I’d say it’s rather pragmatical: I say don’t try to police the whole Internet to get rid of those extreme assholes (that will never happen, no matter how outraged one may feel about their very existence). Instead, let assholes be assholes together, in their stinky corner of the web, just lets make we don’t have to read their shit content, or to breath in the same room as they do.
I may be wrong, but that’s how I consider the question.
The problem with the “freedom to do whatever you want” argument you’re making here is that one person (the moderator in question) has significant power and sway over what others trying to speak with similarly-minded people in that community are allowed to say - making for a serious imbalance of power. You need to use that community if there’s no other similar ones with an established & active user base which covers the topics that community is centered around.
As such, it should be incumbent upon the moderators to strive to be as close to the ideal of “impartial” as humanly possible. It is perfectly reasonable for users to call out bad faith moderation when it happens, otherwise Lemmy will be no better than a more disjointed Reddit.
The problem with the “freedom to do whatever you want” argument you’re making here is that one person (the moderator in question) has significant power and sway over what others trying to speak with similarly-minded people in that community are allowed to say. You need to use that community if there’s no other similar ones with an established & active user base which covers the topics that community is centered around.
Like i said, anyone is allowed to create a new community, that’s the whole idea. But one needs to be willing to do it ;)
Edit: that existing community one is looking to replace with a new one did not magically appear with all its members already subscribed. The mod had to make it so people were willing to participate and subscribe. So, should the creator of the new community. Like I said: one needs to be willing to do it… and put the extra work.
As such, it should be incumbent upon the moderators to strive to be as close to the ideal of “impartial” as humanly possible
That’s personal values. Values I may myself relate too but personal values nonetheless. And certainly not some indisputable truth that should be imposed upon everybody. At least, not in my mind.
It is perfectly reasonable for users to call out bad faith moderation when it happens
Indeed, exactly like I wrote earlier: if someone was ‘abusing’ their moderating power in some community I was part of I see only two reasonable options, both starting by raising the issue within the community, discussing it with other members
Then, actions can be taken. I just see no valid reason to appeal to some extra (new layer of) authority when all the power is already in the hands of the users.
Pilling up on authorities will never compensate for the lack of personal investment.
How do you raise your voice in a community if you get silenced there?
How do you raise your voice in a community if you get silenced there?
You don’t raise your voice (making more noise rarely helps, imho). You raise everyone else awareness that something odd could be happening in regard to some people/you being silenced?
I have never considered the question (I try not to participate in communities where people abuse their power, or to discuss with people that consider a personal aggression any disagreement or diverging opinion) but the first things that come to my mind is that if you get silenced (that can’t be know for sure before trying to publicly post your question in the community), you can still post in other communities that you know members of the first community do read (or in communities created to raise awareness on power abuse, and ask for suggestions). And you can message other users directly to ask them to raise the question publicly for you since you’ve been silenced. And then you can create your own community and start posting: the public timeline is, well, public, anyone will have a chance to read your post. But, really, those are just the first few ideas I would consider if my choice would not be to avoid being in a situation like that to begin with.
all the power is already in the hands of the users.
but the users are being manipulated. The vast majority will never look at the mod log and never realise that the comments they’re seeing have been editorialised.
but the users are being manipulated. The vast majority will never look at the mod log and never realise that the comments they’re seeing have been editorialised.
Hence, what I mentioned two times: the need to inform them by opening the discussion first.
Users don’t need to be gifted/attributed a new leader/mod. They need to decide by themselves if they need a new one, or not.Also, if there is no clue that a comment has been removed/censored (isn’t there some default text displayed?), then that should be something to discuss with Lemmy’s devs as I don’t think deleting comments should be invisible.
Any user can easily see that comments have been removed, it says removed by mod, and you can also see that they weren’t downvoted heavily before removal. There’s no shadowbanning or anything like that on Lemmy, it’s right there for everyone to see.
Yep. That sucks.
Dunno - its a community. The one who creates it decides how to run it and you can freely decide if you want to join or not. If you go on .ml, blahaj or hexbear, you should not expect sane people, let alone mods.
Community =/= instance
Not that much of a difference. Instances tend to have the same mods in many of their instances, leading to the same biases. Also, the political alignment on most instances is similar across all communities on that instance. I got banned in communities I’ve never been active in just because a mod banned me in all communities he’s a mod in.
Because they were able to sneak in obfuscating mod names even though it’s easy as sh-t to get a moderator alt so you can’t even call out the one guy doing it and any blame on the whole moderation teams puts all of them on the defensive due to group psychology. Boy was the modlog and being transparent thrown out the window quickly, people go all ACAB on cops, but at least they all can still be uniquely identified by badge numbers. In Lemmy, not even that, so if ACAB, what does that make them? You at least used to be able to call out and track admins and mods who were clearly misbehaving, but that was too much accountability.
Well, it’s their community, ain’t it?!
If you go into somebody’s club, no matter how insane you think it is - say, a Flat Earthers Association, Pizza Is Best With Pineapple Club or some Church or other - and start hanging post-its all over the place criticizing their mad as shit beliefs, they’re absolutely entitled to tear them down and kick you out and they’ll even have the Moral High Ground doing it since your “right” to loudly be a whiny insulting bitch about somebody else’s beliefs doesn’t trumpt their right not to have loud whiny bitches insulting them in their space.
Now, if they went after you for your opinions outside of their space, then that’s a whole different mater and you would be in the right, but that’s not what you’re complaining about: you’re going into a forum called Late Stage Capitalism to indulge in some “tankie-baiting” and then turn around and whine to the rest of Lemmy about how moderators are such nasty people and shouldn’t be allowed to take down your tankie-baiting posts in an anticapitalist forum.
The simplest solution to this specific “problem” is for you to stop going into their space and act like a cunt there because you don’t like them. You can even block that forum if it makes you feel bad seeing a post from there in All.
Sorry mate but you just sound like a total wanker trying to find support from the crowd to get away with being a total wanker whenever and wherever you see fit.
The correct way to vote against bad moderators and community rules is to RUN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY. Make it a better place, moderate it better.
So bad moderators are ALLOWED to persist because nobody has stepped up and made a better place yet.
And if the response to that is ‘woah, woah, I don’t want to do all that work’ then… clearly the moderation isn’t that bad
Moderation certainly takes significant time and effort, which is why there will only ever be a rather small subset of the wide variety of personalities found in humans actually doing the work for free. It’s tailor-made for those without much else to do in life & who are desperately seeking to have more control over something in their lives. Not saying that’s true of all mods by a long shot, but it’s definitely a major draw for those of that persuasion. They’re always going to be an issue unless there’s some way to counterbalance their power without having to abandon the community and start all over again building another - one which still is just as vulnerable to falling prey to the whims of a person who shouldn’t be moderating.
And who do you propose has the job of moderating the moderators? Whoever that group is, same problem… instance admins, and if you don’t like the instance admins… build your own instance, with better rules, etc. Turtles all the way down.
You vote with your time and attention, if your participating in a community you endorse it. If you want to change the community you can, as above. Wishing, or externalizing, your desires onto other people’s behavior (the lifeless moderators your negging in the above comment) will not be effective in realizing the change you want to see.
And if the response to that is ‘woah, woah, I don’t want to do all that work’ then… clearly the moderation isn’t that bad
if the only people who can moderate, as you posit, don’t have a life - implying you can’t moderate because you do have a life… then the moderation isn’t bad enough to motivate you to take on responsibility… so its good enough.
Sorry, I meant to reply to you with [this comment] (https://lemmings.world/comment/12766392), but - further proving what I said in it first - I inadvertently sent the reply to the wrong person (I’m only noticing it this quickly because I was woken up by the call of nature).
(You’re linked post doesn’t address any of my points, and just repeat yourself, but okay fine)
Okay, if I understand that post correctly, you want direct democracy to determine moderation in a community.
How do you prevent brigading? What about a community talking about sensitive topics, like diet and exercise? Or vegan versus carnivore? One side’s going to have more people than the other, and they can moderate the other into silence?
I think it’s an interesting experiment, just like craigslist used to do, or slashdot with metamoderation.
If you build it, I’ll give it a shot
I mod one of the larger communities. I’m just the janitor. Y’all are the real mods as far as I’m concerned. It really isn’t very much time as far as mod stuff here. I don’t read every post or comment. If y’all see something, say something. It doesn’t mean I will take the action from the flag. It only means I will read into it, give the benefit of the doubt in every way possible and mod very conservatively in line with community voting too. I also will tell you if I am commenting or questioning as a mod, and differ to another mod if I am ever involved in an issue personally.
Being a mod does not need to be a chore or a power trip. Just treat it like a job as a janitor and trust in the community as a whole while completely setting yourself aside. It is really not that hard.
Hmm… Catholic clergy phenomenon?
That is an admin decision. Lemmy instances don’t have the same policies regarding non-interference of mods like Reddit does, but the smaller instance size usually means admins and mods work a lot more hand in hand.
Also, Lemmy copied the same Reddit mod power structure.
Oh hey look it’s me
