When having to admit their fault the moderator started looking for arbitrary reasons to ban me. Such as not using the exact terminology of the Amnesty report. Which does not call it genocide.


The moderator is also watching user votes, and calling out people not voting with him.

top 115 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (114 children)

Seeing how Goat tried to ping db0 because they voted in the thread to drag them into debate, I'm gonna go with PTB on this one.

If they wanted to prove their point, they should have given links that proved their point.

  • source
  • hideshow 114 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (104 children)

    Never mind that anarchists are explicitly anti-authoritarian, apparently db0 is a tankie now? Lol, yep checks out. Those twatwaffles think a "tankie" is anyone who is critical of the Dems, or of US foreign policy. OPs comments were also accurate imo regarding China's influence in Myanmar being a much stronger example of Chinese imperialism.

    The libs have got some nerve getting hysterical about the Uyghurs when they obviously couldn't give two shits about their own government (and their own party) continually voting to keep supplying weapons to Israel in order to continue its genocide in Gaza. Has China been shitty and authoritarian towards the Uyghurs? Yes, no doubt. Is it a genocide of the type and scale that Israel is currently waging? Absolutely not.

    PTB

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 104 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I always said it was only a matter of time before the social fascists that call MWoG their home would turn on even dbzer0. It's the classic Nazi bar, they outright fabricate info, erase context, welcome Zionists and other fascists, it was only a matter of time before they got even greedier and started attacking anarchists for being "tankies."

    It's not a coincidence that they call us "roaches" or "degenerates," it's because it's a cryptofash meeting spot.

    Edit: lmao, seems I pissed off the social fascist. I couldn't even engage if I wanted to interact with your Nazi bar, because PJ bans me from every comm they mod because they lost an argument in a comm they don't mod. Go fuck yourself, fascist. Keep spreading hasbara, keep tending your garden of Zionists. Palestine will be free, and there's nothing you can do to stop that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You don't even want to leave your safespace to engage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (98 children)

    didnt u ban me from a community for no reason

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 98 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (28 children)

    For "violating the disengage rule" so no, not for "no reason".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Tell me about this disengagement rule, sounds rather interesting

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (25 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (24 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (23 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Oh I had the same disengage rule but still got snarked by your snarky snark community

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    You "had the same disengage rule"? What does that even mean? I didn't see you using disengage anywhere, and the disengage rule doesn't protect you from being talked about, only from being talked to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    You can read through that thread I linked and figure it out

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    I did. Nothing relevant to the disengage rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    no i also had a disengage rule for my community

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Your disengage rule is not our disengage rule? Our disengage rule is not preventing us talking about you or your comm in our own instance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    You're more obtuse than a right angle.

    I have a disengage rule for my community, yet when that rule is used, my community is featured on this snark comm. It's hypocritical for this comm to be criticising mine for that rule when you use it yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Again, we don't use your rule. Our rule doesn't prevent us from talking about your moderation practices. Therefore no hypocrisy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    You've gone so obtuse you've fallen flat.

    My community. Disengagement rule. Your community, it too disengagement rule. Rule are on different community. But rule are same.

    You use disengagement. Is fine.

    I use disengagement. is not fine.

    You are hypocrite

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    My community. Disengagement rule.

    Sure, but our comm is not your comm? Your comm rules do not apply to our comm?

    Why do you think your rules should apply to areas you don't control? Even in our own disengage rule, we say we can't control what happens in other instances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    When I used my community's disengagement rule to temporarily ban (now expired) a user from my community, this snark community got upset.

    Yet when you use your disengagement rule to ban users, this community is silent.

    Do you realise the double-standard or are you just double-stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It seems another mod banned you so you can't respond anymore, but I will say that this community is all about criticising comms and their rules as well. Just because you banned someone "according to rules" doesn't mean it's an action above criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    I came back to this thread days later just out of boredom to see what else happened.

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? It seems pretty straightforward and you're kinda just dismissing the very simple and obvious hypocrisy allegations with a weird strawman? Let me replay what is being discussed bcos I can't tell if you're being dumb on purpose or just misread something.

    This is a community about (perceived) community mismanagement, based on common/majority opinion.

    This community has a rule about disengagement. Seems like a fine rule to help keep things from escalating.

    Goat's community, allegedly, has the same rule. I am taking this at face value.

    If this rule is enforced in Goat's community, and then criticized in this community, then it is clearly, objectively, and I don't know how else I can stress this ANY further, inarguably hypocritical to have a rule that operates on the same basis.

    Again, I'm just taking what is being said by Goat at face value bcos you failed to actually refute anything they said and made a dumb argument about not needing to enforce Goat's rules in other communities (which is clearly not what Goat was saying at all, hence why it's so confusing that you got stuck on this strawman).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Goat's community, allegedly, has the same rule. I am taking this at face value.

    There's your problem. It does not have the same rule. I said that multiple times in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No? You didn't? You said you couldn't personally locate it, that's the closest thing (in this thread) to what you claim to have said (in this thread).

    You seem to be struggling bcos Goat is clearly either confused themself or a bad faith actor, and what they are saying/evidence they are providing is confusing you because it is nonsensical. The claim Goat made was that they used a disengage rule in their own community and then the evidence they provided of this was the "snark thread" about them which seems entirely irrelevant to the claim. But at no point did you argue against their claim, you argued against their evidence, which should have been dismissed in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Our disengage rule doesn't go against YPTB posting. So either we don't have the same rule, so goat can't complain that we're hypocrites. Or we do have the same rule, in which case we're not violating it. And honestly, I think you're trying way too hard to keep arguing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Also, I want to clarify that if you are trying to accuse me of being some bad faith actor aligned with Goat and/or PugJesus, know that I am probably much closer to your instance's general opinion on the Palestinian genocide than I am to theirs, but also much closer in opinion to them about the Ughyur genocide than I am to your instance's general opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I just think it's annoying when people can't properly grasp what the other side is saying, and you still don't seem to grasp what is being communicated to you.

    Goat is clearly trying to say "I have a disengage rule in my community. I used this rule against a user, and then enforced it by banning them. They called me a power tripping bastard for enforcing a rule that the power tripping bastard community has. This is hypocrisy"

    Which, it would be, assuming everything else Goat alleged in that thread is true.

    If, say, flatworm had banned me from this community and then I came back later and accused flatworm of being a power tripping bastard for banning me over the disengage rule.

    And trying way too hard to keep arguing? What are you, the argument police? Yeah, I like arguing on the internet. It's a good way to let off steam. But I also like correcting people, being pedantic, etc.

    I'm not even arguing with you so much as trying to get to the bottom of why you're misinterpreting the argument Goat posed, and then contradicting you when you say something that isn't true. I don't think of pointing out objectively incorrect recollections as being arguing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Which, it would be, assuming everything else Goat alleged in that thread is true.

    It. is. not. hypocrisy! We are perfectly within the context of this community to criticize both the rules and the applications of those rules!

    If, say, flatworm had banned me from this community and then I came back later and accused flatworm of being a power tripping bastard for banning me over the disengage rule.

    Yes, you can do that. People would tell YDI, but that's about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How about this lmao

    If they're the same exact rule being applied fairly in both instances, then it would be hypocrisy to criticize something that happens in one community which is routine in the community criticizing. Is this fair?

    I'm not saying that is true of this situation. I am saying that is the argument being made that you aren't refuting very effectively from my perspective. Lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If the rule was the same, and the bans goat was criticised were due to an identical disengage rule application as we have here, then it would not be hypocritical to open a thread in YPTB, but it would be hypocritical for people who uphold the disengage rule here to criticise goat for using it. But nobody did that.

    This is just a discussion without a purpose. You don't even know if it's the same rule, you're just making hypotheticals and it's honestly a waste of both our times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (68 children)

    Can you go into more detail? I know Pug's had some awful experiences with db0's instance, but they're banned and can't share that, which I find highly suspect

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 68 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Stop shitstirring. This post is about your shitty behavior, not my mod actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    My shitty behaviour?

    How so? Was the OP not violating the rules?

    Or are you admitting that this community isn't actually about moderator misconduct but instead a way to attack others based on their views?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The shitty behavior was pinging an instance admin in an unrelated thread to accuse them of being a tankie for downvoting a comment. And what's also shitty imo is claiming that folks who think the whole Uyghur genocide in China is massively overblown by the West are all tankies. It's entirely possible to believe China is a hugely authoritarian State and also that the Uyghur "genocide" claims are mostly overblown and misrepresented by the West. I'm no China fan, but they certainly aren't bombing the shit out of the Uyghurs or peppering civilians with grenades dropped from drones, like US-backed Israel is. You guys love the lesser evil argument, so to put it in a way you will understand: many folks think China is the lesser evil compared to the US, and that doesn't make those folks tankies. It just means they recognise that the list of shitty things the US has done in the past 50 years far, far outweighs the list of shitty things that China has done in the same period.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If you read my comment, you'd know the reason why I pinged, which was to lead up to my complaint about this community. That this community isn’t actually about moderator misconduct but instead a way to attack others based on their views, or in my case, just making shit up about my views despite me clarifying what they are.

    When it comes to atrocity, there's no 'lesser evil' or justification or differentiation for it. There's no excuse at all; that's why they're atrocities. I don't care who they come from, if they hurt people, I don't like them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    When it comes to atrocity, there’s no ‘lesser evil’ or justification or differentiation for it. There’s no excuse at all; that’s why they’re atrocities. I don’t care who they come from, if they hurt people, I don’t like them.

    Exactly. So why rage at anarchists when fighting authoritarian states is literally our whole thing? It's just because we are also highly critical of the US and the Dems in particular, because they are always banging on about being the "lesser evil" like its some sort of gotcha. To be clear, if I haven't been already, I 100% condemn China's actions towards the Uyghurs. Is it technically a genocide? Depends what definition you're working with, but to my mind it meets the definition. Meanwhile the Dems have consistently voting with Trump to keep arming Israel, and there is no sign of them changing their position. So what irks me and others is the double standard. Most Democrat representatives have repeatedly denied Gaza is a genocide, and continue to do so, but I don't see you banning people who attempt to downplay the role of the US in that genocide as being tankies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I don't care about the US. It's an evil country and a third-world one at that. The world would be a better place if the government were to collapse.

    But enough about the US and its shittiness, go back onto the topic of this community and how it conducts itself. Surely you must have a statement regarding the brigading and my criticism of this community?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don’t care about the US. It’s an evil country and a third-world one at that. The world would be a better place if the government were to collapse.

    Well, we agree on that at least.

    If you read my comment, you’d know the reason why I pinged, which was to lead up to my complaint about this community. That this community isn’t actually about moderator misconduct but instead a way to attack others based on their views, or in my case, just making shit up about my views despite me clarifying what they are.

    Anyone can read the previous posts in this community and form their own opinion on that. As a community mod I'm not the arbiter of truth in this community. I have my own opinions and I share them, along with everyone else. I don't apologise for that. But I'd say in 9/10 cases the community sentiment towards posters is very much aligned with my own. You just seem to be aggrieved that the community has deemed you to be the PTB in this case. It's clear to me (and obviously to others judging by the comments) that you hate leftists a lot more than the right wingers who frequent your community, who you seem to get along with just fine. And that fact you claim anarchists are tankies tells me all I need to know about your political literacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago

    Why are you holding me to a different standard than yourself?

    I'm upset that this community isn't actually about whether a user broke the rules, but instead whether they agree with the views. That's the key point here. And also your community constantly brigading.

    It’s clear to me (and obviously to others judging by the comments) that you hate leftists a lot more than the right wingers who frequent your community, who you seem to get along with just fine.

    and rightists? There ain't any rightists on lemmy lol

    I don't use left/right anyway; it's stupid.

    And that fact you claim anarchists are tankies tells me all I need to know about your political literacy.

    The irony of an anarchist calling me politically illiterate. Regardless, I never called any anarchists tankies, only that your community has been supportive and taken over by them. You even have users in this thread praising Hamas, denying that rapes happened and denying genocides.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (48 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm not banned, and the idea that I'm a compulsive liar is laughable. I guess it hurts that I come with receipts when I make claims?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (44 children)

    Do you? You have OP who doesn't believe in the inhumane treatment of the Uyghurs, Chinese imperialism or even the Holodomor. Should people be banned for lying?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (43 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (42 children)
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (41 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (40 children)
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (39 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (38 children)

    But they didn't. They said it was imperialism to support another group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Which is in violation of human rights

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    No, they differentiated by saying that it wasn't based on ethnicity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Well, aren't you a radical Islamist, being so supportive of Hamas? Don't you take issue with the persecution of Muslims in China?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    An atheist hamas supporter, a nice chickens for KFC moment, but that's the standard.

    How much do you think religion plays into the conflict for both Israel and Hamas, and more importantly, would secularism help?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    They said China's foreign policy and meddling toward Myanmar was a better example of Chinese imperialism than your example. Maybe you are confused about what imperialism is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Do you think China is imperialist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Wtf is this, a tankie purity test? With respect to Myanmar, yes. But in general, much less so than any other superpower. They have used economic imperialism quite a bit, as have all economic superpowers, but that's quite different compared to literally colonizing countries like nearly every Western state has done. They have also supported Russia's imperialist invasion of Ukraine, So my qualified answer is yes to some degree, but I definitely wouldn't say imperialism is one of their defining characteristics, particularly when you look at the scale of their imperialist characteristics compared to basically any western state. What they are though is highly authoritarian towards their own people, and as an anarchist that's what I find most problematic about the Chinese state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Just doing the same as what your community is actively doing to me in this very thread. And what your community constantly does to others. You can handle it.

    You do realise China has a history of colonisation as well, right? Every country has a history of colonisation, that's how countries are formed. How about Tibet? Or Hong Kong? Or how they view Taiwan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (23 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    So what are you going to do about this community's brigading and about the tankies within this thread? Last time I checked, denying rapes and being openly supportive of Hamas isn't an anarchist position. It's also a violation of the code of conduct, so I wonder why you haven't taken moderator action yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Lol are you talking about cryptagion, one of the most vocal tankie haters on our instance? Yep, definitely a tankie because [checks notes] he supports Hamas in their struggle against their warmongering neighbour and refutes obvious Israeli war propaganda? Sure bro, keep stretching the definition of what a tankie is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (20 children)

    No, diva, cowbee and OP. All of which are self-proclaimed tankies

    Though it is quite alarming to see anarchists supportive of Hamas and the atrocities that were carried out during the 7th of October massacres, killing upwards of 1200 innocents. Would've figured the death of innocents is always bad regardless of who they are.

    But let's shelf that for now and focus on the brigading and how this community seems to have lost it's purpose, which is discussing whether or not a ban was justified, not about the views of the moderator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Would’ve figured the death of innocents is always bad regardless of who they are.

    It is always bad, nobody is arguing otherwise.

    But let’s shelf that for now and focus on the brigading and how this community seems to have lost it’s purpose, which is discussing whether or not a ban was justified, not about the views of the moderator.

    What's your definition of brigading? Is it when nobody agrees with you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (18 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    So brigading is when our community members vote on posts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

    Yes, when members come from another thread into the original to manipulate via voting, commenting and derailing the thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Do you mean derailing? That's what's you're doing by trying to make this post about this community instead of about you and your turbolib friends. Even PJ doesn't stoop to calling us tankies, because although we seem to disagree about some things, he's not a complete idiot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Stop dodging. What are you going to do about the vote and comment manipulation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Honestly, go back to sjw if you can't handle our users' opinions conflicting with your own. There is no brigading. This is a dbzer0 community. Of course our members are gonna downvote asshats when they see one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You're deliberately twisting. Those screenshots I sent are from the MoG community, the SJW instance, in the original thread. They did not exist prior to this community and the YPTB thread.

    Your members went from this community and this thread, into my community and its thread.

    What are you going to do about the vote and comment manipulation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    That's called the Streisand effect, look it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    What are you going to do about the vote and comment manipulation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I don't accept your premise. If you have any evidence of "manipulation" or sock puppet accounts then please provide it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I have. All of those accounts didn't participate in the thread until this post, and then they all manipulated the thread

    Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why are you making wild claims just because a few users went to your thread (you know, the thread that was reported here that OBVIOUSLY people would have gone and looked at and engaged with) and downvoted your sorry ass? That's not brigading, it's just normal user behaviour.

    None of your arguments here have been in good faith. You've just strutted around peppering our users with a bunch of accusatory questions as though you're some sort of lameass Joe McCarthy impersonator. Did you learn that on voat.com? You don't even seem to have the vaguest clue what anarchism means as a political ideology, or how completely ridiculous it is to be calling us tankies. Looks to me like you're just stirring up shit with our instance and on that basis I'm not going to bother engage with you any further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why are you making wild claims just because a few users went to your thread (you know, the thread that was reported here that OBVIOUSLY people would have gone and looked at and engaged with) and downvoted your sorry ass? That’s not brigading, it’s just normal user behaviour.

    Okay, I'll do that then. My community is also bigger lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I was temp-banned. The only awful experience I had was the temp-ban, which was over the admins deciding that downvoting things you disagree with is, apparently, against the rules (when they want it to be).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Wait is that true? They banned you for downvoting?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Downvoting comments I disagree with was considered "downvote trolling"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Can you link the thread so we can read through it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'll give it a read, but I'm a little unsure as to the context going on

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I mentioned that I clicked on a user's profile after seeing them comment because I was interested in what they were up to lately, and that I found it to be mostly bad (unsurprisingly). Things that I read on their profile that I disagreed with and found sufficiently vile to regard as a negative to even be said, I downvoted.

    Said user went to the dbzer0 admins to accuse me of 'downvote trolling' for this, admitting that I had only downvoted comments I disagreed with. The dbzer0 admins agreed that downvoting comments that one disagrees with (if the person being disagreed with is one of Their's(tm) ) is 'downvote trolling' and temp-banned me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Have you thought about posting that to this community? Seems like a good example of PTB

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Nah. The only reason I came to this thread was because I was pinged. I generally stay out of dbzer0 comms at this point. As the audience here shows, Dbzer0 comms are quite alright with genocide and atrocity denial these days, which is unfortunate. I don't remember it being like that at first, but maybe I just didn't see it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    On top of everything else, using mod/admin privileges to reveal users’ votes is just bad form.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The main reason reddit is shit is because it's so easy to manipulate votes. I'm happy most lemmy instances have public voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Reddit is easy to sockpuppet because it’s a corporation with one primary goal: MUA go up. Ad sales and user data sales. If the vote manipulation and shill posts/comments don’t hurt user engagement metrics then they don’t care.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    User votes are public on Lemmy. One should be held accountable for their votes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    User votes are public on Lemmy.

    The only reason they’re “public” is an artifact of ActivityPub’s architecture that can’t be designed around, because if it could be, it would be. Users who continue to expose votes after being warned may get banned (which thankfully is extremely rare so far). Instances like lemvotes.org get defederated.

    One should be held accountable for their votes

    They are held accountable, by the mods & admins. Vote spam/manipulation accounts get banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Users who continue to expose votes after being warned may get banned

    Depends on the instance I think.

    They are held accountable, by the mods & admins.

    So correct me if I'm wrong but regular mods can't see it and only admins.

    So this is just an anecdotal impression but when lemvotes came online, a few mods and users got called out for their zionist voting. After that, the amount of pro Israel propaganda being upvoted, posted and commented went down by quite a bit.

    It's too much to ask of admins imo, going through downvotes. More importantly, I'd rather the bad actors have potentially any one of us to fear instead of a just a handful of already too busy admins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Depends on the instance I think.

    Of course. I can only speak to lemmy.ml. Other instance admins are welcome to add their 2¢.

    So correct me if I’m wrong but regular mods can’t see it and only admins.

    Until recently that was true, but I think mods can now see the votes in their communities.

    It’s too much to ask of admins imo, going through downvotes.

    Could be. I think at least one instance has built tooling/automation around it. The thing is, dealing with users getting into arguments/fights/vendettas over votes may also be a lot to ask of admins.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›