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.
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.
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.
Hey that me!!!
Yeah the pastahead who thinks that ussr, vietnam, and china are “communist”.
They’re only not communist when you criticise them in front of a communist.
Eh I’m not as deep on the others but China has gone the State Capitalist route.
Not really. Historically, the PRC over-emphasized Class Struggle, which is only one aspect of Marxism. As a consequence, development was uneven and relatively unstable, what Marxists would consider an “ultraleft” error, ie dogmatism over pragmatism. The market reforms were done in a manner that clearly separated what must always remain in the Public Sector, like Steel, Energy, and Transportation, while opening up other industries for market reforms and foreign investment. This was a reversion to traditional Marxist economics.
Fast-forward to today, we can analyze that economic growth was stabilized and improved, the sectors deemed as always to be in the public sector have remained, and in the current era the CPC has begun to exert more control and pressure over the Private Sector as the markets are doing their job and rapidly developing. This development of the Productive Forces drastically reduces the sheer difficulty of Central Planning by allowing markets to centralize by themselves and develop their own infrastructure for planning, and the CPC adds cadre to their top management to begin exacting more control.
Think of it like planting seeds, watching them grow, carefully pruning them, and then harvesting them into the Public Sector. Regardless of your opinion of the PRC overall, the CPC’s methodology is firmly based in a Marxian understanding of economics, and to deny that is an error whether you are a Marxist or a Liberal. If you fail to properly analyze the PRC, it becomes a bit of a “Schroedinger’s Socialism,” neither Capitalism nor Socialism, and thus any recommendations for changing their methods or continuing them is also bound to run into traps and pitfalls.
I know they got there with Marxist ideas, but regardless, they are squarely in the realm of State Capitalism now. Where the state at least heavily influences companies run in a capitalist manner with all the abuses and exploitations of capitalism. Making it impossible to get relief from the state because they are effectively your boss. I view China as a warning of what a road to hell paved with good intentions can look like.
I think you’re a bit confused about what “State Capitalism” is in Marxian economics, here. Marx and Engels both repeatedly asserted that folding Capital into the Public Sector is a gradual process once “lower-stage Communism” (now referred to as “Socialism”) was achieved. This directly implies markets and Private Property exist even within a society that had already become Socialist. I am not sure how you can counter that without attempting to redefine Marxism or reject it wholly.
As for the nature of the PRC’s economics, the Public Sector is primary, and the Private Sector is gradually more heavily influenced and planned by government. This does not mean it’s “impossible to get relief because the CPC is their boss,” the CPC is not run for profit like that. SOEs compete in the Private Sector, but the CPC itself is not made up of the bourgeoisie, but overwhelmingly not bourgeoisie.
I think reading theory would help you a lot with understanding how the PRC operates and why.
Evidence says the CPC is exactly run for profit like that.
To be fair to both, these are Communist countries with different approaches to enforcing peace and distribution of goods. But none are the “ideal” representation of Communism thanks to corruption, oligarchs and crimes against Humanity 👀
What a weird coincidence that there has never been an ideal communist country due to corruption. I wonder what that implies.
Is there an ideal version of communism you can point us to?
Yes, the one where I am the dear leader!
What about the one where you’re the 🦌leader
They certainly were/are run by Marxists trying to bring about Communism, I’m not sure what your point is here. They aren’t Anarchist, but they are certainly run by Marxists.
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
that’s some real lemmy.ml shit here
Oh hey look it’s me
Frankly, i can’t essentially distinguish tankies from nazi minded. They are just different flavor of far right.
Communism and Fascism are entirely different, both historically and ideologically, and to conflate the two is a massive error. I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti, it’s a very enjoyable read due to Parenti’s characteristic wit while being packed with exacting historical rigor.
They didn’t write communism, they wrote tankies. And while I won’t equate tankies to nazis, they do share a lot of ideology, such as their love of strongmen.
The distinction between Communists and “tankies” doesn’t really matter at this point because the label of “tankie” is applied to every Communist these days, even Anarchists and progressive liberals. It’s generally a term without meaning. Either way, though, Communists don’t “love strongmen,” that’s more of a post-hoc explanation liberals come up with to denounce Communist movements, ie “Che Geuvara is a strongman, that’s why Communists support Cuba” etc. etc.
You should read the book too.
I mostly see the word tankie used by left-leaning individuals. Many of them communist. Right-wingers just call any non-fascist a commie.
I see the word “tankie” more often than not used by Anarchists against Marxists, and by liberals towards anyone to their left.
I’m a marxist.
As am I. I am explaining my own experiences.
They are just different flavor of far right.
BANNED: Horseshoe theory
/s
Non-sarcastic reply:
Horseshoe theory isn’t so much about “the far-left is the same as the far-right” as it is about “all authoritarians derive power from the same human instincts” and the further left or right you go, the more authoritarian you have to be in order to social achieve the narrative you’re aiming for.
This is just wishy washy vibes though. Historically fascism has risen from the interests of the Capitalist class and Communism has risen from the interests of the working class. Moreover, Communists have historically supported liberatory anti-colonialist movements, such as in Algeria and Palestine, Cuba and South Africa, while fascists have historically supported ever-more agressive colonialism. I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti, it’s a witty read with intense historical rigor.
I think you’re actually missing the point. Horseshoe theory doesn’t say left and right want the same things or have the same motivations, it’s more like saying all armies need boots and weapons no matter what they’re fighting for.
Horseshoe theory is widely panned. Its just a centrist insult masquerading as a politcai theory.
That stethoscope meme isn’t a whole lot better, but it is a little bit more demonstrative.
to me , left vs right is about wanting to do good to other people and helping them be themselves vs controlling them by force if necessary. This whole political ideology mess is just stupid and confusing. It doesnt do good to my worldview though.
Is it really good if you have to do it “to” someone?
Children need to be educated.
And there’s a lot of big kids running around.
Historically, the Left is made up of the progressive class interests, while the right is made up of the regressive, or “reactionary” class interests. Wanting to progress beyond our current Mode of Production to a more collective one is Leftist, while pining for “the good old days” and seeking to turn the clock back, so to speak, is right wing.
Um… no, I don’t think so.
The problem authoritarians have is that they’re just not that popular, so to be relevant at all, they must cloak their ideas in the language of the progressive. They must pretend to be something they’re not.
I mean, I’m not saying being very strongly opinionated doesn’t lead to some authoritative rule-whipping, but I wouldn’t call that Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is more like narcissist behavior.
Fascism is when the government does things
Horeshoe Theory again.
The political spectrum is bent. Historically, the extreme far left and the extreme far right are just different avenues of arriving at the same destination, which is totalitarianism. Absolute power corrupts, etc.
Eh, far right isn’t really the right word here, I’d say authoritarian.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
I was really hoping it was a refugee community that formed from non tankies that were banned by R/LSC.
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.
Yep. That sucks.
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.
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.
They also likely wouldn’t get involved without a tremendous amount of uproar, because the instance is way too large and their work load for, well, admin stuff is likely off the charts.
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.
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
Hmm… Catholic clergy phenomenon?
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.
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.
LateStageCapitalism was already a Tankie disinformation cesspool on Reddit. Not sure why it is on .world instead of .ml or lemmygrad though.
But generally, Lemmy mods are just users. So just like on Reddit, you’ll get all the flaws of this system with tons of mod abuse. If you have opinions that other’s don’t like, they’ll punish you for it and make up a bunch of bullshit to justify themselves.
Because too many people block ml and Lemmygrad.
As part of the Community Team here on LW, I do have the power to review mods and warn/remove them if needed. However, I don’t use that lightly, and given the holdover from Reddit, that heavy moderation might be in line with what people expect.
I’ll keep an eye out, but it’s gotta be pretty damn egregious. I’m also less inclined to use admin powers on something I personally disagree with. I tend to slightly overcorrect for my own bias, which I understand is a bias in itself.
LW has many different mods, and doesn’t have mods that collect all the major communities like pokemon. Personally, I think that’s already better than Reddit. Unfortunately, people seem to just pick their least favorite community and least favorite mod and ascribe that to the entire instance. Many instances are heavily run by their admins. .World is not.
Removed Wikipedia articles cited as misinformation looks pretty egregious to me
Do you want to make a statement on what policies the admins should enforce here?
What’s the argument for/against dealing with it and what should we do?
If it’s a good argument, I can promise it’ll be seen.
Removal of misinformation should require a mod discussion/panel review. Sources can be deemed to be misinformation by a mod majority vote and the list they maintain should be public.
How many mods are there over there, one? Also that’s mod policy. I’m talking about admins. What kind of policy do you want the admins to enforce on the mods?
Ah, gotcha.
Well, if mod actions are reported to admins, they already do a review on the mod, I imagine. So in this case, this post should lead to a mod review, right? Not sure if OP had already gone through official channels. I personally haven’t had to look into this topic before.
So I guess, if admins see that a mod is removing factual information to fit their agenda, that should be grounds for removal. Wikipedia has robust moderation and certainly couldn’t be considered misinformation.
