Why do you think I'm advocating for that? I was simply offering a possible explanation.

Your comments seem a little divisive, should the mod remove them?

Obvious PTB this is a good tip.

It's relevant if the mod thinks that's a reason to delete it.

I'm so sorry this happened to you. I am happy you were able to resolve it.

Happy Lemmy Birthday!

I'm so sorry that happened to you.

Which is limited to Microsoft boot lickers in Microsoft’s walled-garden. After MS bought github their 2FA incompetence broke my access. So the 5 bugs are reported here.

Since you didn’t share the username/instance,

Doesn’t this link work for you?

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/39819472/25666072

AFAIK, SDF is open access. From there, you click … to reach that user’s modlog, which leads you here: https://lemmy.sdf.org/modlog?userId=27699421

I wouldn’t say it’s a bug

I’m calling it 5 bugs.

but it is very easy for an admin to use incorrectly or withoutout care for the ramifications.

It’s the job of the software to make the user understand what the software does.

Bourbon and brine. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

I don't know. I'm just thinking maybe that's why they removed it.

The roller rink where I grew up used to have a drink called the Pickle Fizz, which was just pickle juice and soda water.

I didn't know that was a prerequisite for posting.

Context: Was there any text in the body of the post? Because otherwise, this is something that I wouldn't even have understood the purpose of as a reader and might even mistake as a weird, low-effort sex joke.

Irrelevant.

Looks like it wasn't well received before it was removed.

To be fair, pickles are gross

I'm so sorry that happened to you.

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/60810312

I had brain pickles that week. It's like brain worms but pickles.

I've been known to drink some of the pickle juice once all the pickles have been consumed. No, I have no shame. Come at me.

Banning an account means his whole content is deleted (that’s how it was done since the 90s)

Lemmy did not exist in the 90s. When a usenet account or email account ceased to exist for any reason, the content on news servers and mailing lists was separate. Software can be crudely designed (web-based in particular), or it can be well designed.

Saying “(that’s how it was done since the 90s)” implies a conventional wisdom fallacy. It’s irrelevent how it was done in whatever span of time. Tech was often designed better before the 90s. Advancements are obviously made but I see design approaches worsening.

Most importantly, the tool /can/ be smarter. A good tool might remove all content as a starting point, then a spamassassin-like process could run that works out likely ham, which could then be either reinstated or flagged for human review, depending on resource constraints (both human and machine). A blunt remove all is important to have but crude and reckless if it’s the only option.

Spammers do write some random content to pretend they are not bots, again a fact.

And? Intent doesn’t matter. The end game is still about separating spam from ham. Your claim just supports the view that there is some ham to save.

despite the message incorrectly stating it was a mod

Ah, forgot about that bug.. that’s the 5th bug I count in this whole fiasco.

Since you didn't share the username/instance, we'll just have to guess since we can't look at the modlog but I would say that an instance admin got overzealous with the ban and remove all feature. I will admit that I did this one time when I shouldn't have and spent hours restoring years worth of their content when I realized what I had done.

I wouldn't say it's a bug but it is very easy for an admin to use incorrectly or withoutout care for the ramifications. It would make some sense to have a threshold time limiit as default so say "remove all content in the last day/week/month" or the admin can remove all in the event it's necessary.

Bugs can be reported on the GitHub repository: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues

I’m stating facts and there is no victim here

wow, just wow

rule 1 victim blaming