I’m not arguing against moderator discretion, I’m saying this community would benefit from stating the discretion boundary explicitly.

You’re already doing it in practice ("deemed offensive," "promotes right-wing ideologies"), and that’s your right. But between what’s been stated in this post and the current written rules, it’s easy for users to assume a level of consistency and auditability that the tooling doesn’t really provide.

Maybe something like this would help:

Rule 3: Respect the community’s principles.

Posts/comments may be removed if they conflict with our mission to center Global South perspectives. This includes (but isn’t limited to) discriminatory language, colonial/imperialist framing, or right-wing ideology.

Removed content may not be shown in the modlog. Removal reasons may be brief.

That would make expectations crystal clear and avoid confusion.

I understand not showing slurs publicly. My point is that if the original content can be hidden and the reason can be vague, then "the modlog will show the reason" isn't meaningfully accountability ... it's closer to "trust us." If you're moderating based on moderator discretion (eg. "deemed offensive" or "right-wing ideology") in addition to the written rules, it'd be more transparent to state that explicitly in the rules or policy.

The nice thing about the fediverse is people can choose communities whose moderation philosophy matches them ... but only if it's clearly documented up-front.

Should you face moderation, the reason will be visible in the modlog

The modlog can omit the original comment and may not include a substantive reason for removal. That means moderators can remove content while leaving little or no trace of what was removed or why, effectively enabling silent unaccountable censorship.

If the modlog is incomplete by design (or even buggy), it should be described honestly.

Listing articles about the existence of far-right groups does not prove that Ukraine is "run by neo-Nazis". They are two distinct claims.

Far-right parties in Ukraine have never held power and have polled 1–3% nationally since 2014. Zelensky is Jewish, ran on an anti-nationalist platform, and defeated the nationalist vote overwhelmingly.

Every country has radical groups. Russia has openly fascist and ultranationalist movements (e.g., Rusich, Wagner’s ideological core, Imperial Legion) that are far closer to the state than anything comparable in Ukraine.

Azov began as a volunteer unit in 2014 and was restructured, depoliticized, and made subordinate to the National Guard, and its original political wing collapsed electorally. Its membership was always a mixed group, not an ideological army.

There would have been no Azov, no mass mobilization, and no expanded Ukrainian military at all without Russia’s invasion. Russia did not respond to extremism ... it created the conditions for militarization.

Bandera is a contested historical symbol and not state ideology. Modern Ukrainian law, elections and governance are civic and not ethno-nationalist.

A few corrections. Ukraine is not run by "Banderites" or neo-nazis. Far-right parties have consistently received low-single-digit percentages of the vote for many years now (I found one small spike in the stats, but that seems like a moment-in-time protest vote, dropping off again) and they hold no real power. Zelensky was elected by a large nationwide majority, including in the east (with international observers).

No blaming, but there's no credible evidence that Maidan was a nationalist "false flag." Multiple investigations found that responsibility was complex and disputed, and not a takeover by extremists.

Donbas is historically multilingual (russian, ukranian, greeks, germans, jews, tartars, etc.) and not an "indigenous Russian" region, and no international body has found Ukrainian policy to be ethnic cleansing.

Minsk violations were documented on all sides by the OSCE, including Russia and Russian-backed forces.

Labeling modern Ukraine as "neo-Nazi" relies on WWII rhetoric, and not present-day political reality.

Yanukovych was not overthrown by force. His authority collapsed after the use of lethal force against protesters, which resulted in more than 100 deaths and triggered mass defections from the Interior Ministry, individual police units, and regional administrations. After losing effective control of the security apparatus, Yanukovych left Kyiv and then Ukraine, ceased exercising presidential powers, and failed to fulfill his constitutional duties. Ukraine's Parliament, including a large number of members from his own party of Regions, then declared him unable to govern and scheduled early elections. This reflects abandonment of office followed by parliamentary succession, not a coup.

As for Donbas, its earlier inclusion in the Russian Empire is irrelevant under modern international law. Donbas became part of Soviet Ukraine in the 1920s for political and economic reasons, remained within the Ukrainian SSR for nearly seventy years and was recognized as part of independent Ukraine by all parties (including Russia) in 1991. Borders established at independence were legally binding and internationally guaranteed.

Before Russia’s intervention in 2014, there was no armed conflict in Donbas and no evidence of genocide. Civilian life was normal by any reasonable standard: functioning schools, elections, media, and commerce. Claims of genocide appeared only after the conflict began and originate almost entirely from wartime propaganda sources. The simplest and most verifiable fact remains that the region was peaceful before Russian military involvement.

Russia initiated a war on false premises and later expanded it into a full scale invasion, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and economic costs measured in hundreds of billions of dollars and euros / trillions of rubles. These outcomes stem from deliberate political choices, not historical necessity or defensive obligation.

Russians are the ones native to the Donbass region, which was added to Ukraine only a century ago. The fact that the Russian Federation exists does not mean that ethnic Russians aren’t indigenous to the Donbass region, and as such deserve special protections, and certainly not the ethnic cleansing they are subject to.

Indigenous peoples are generally understood as populations that pre-date modern states and empires in a territory, with continuous cultural, linguistic, and social presence prior to colonization.

ie. not indigenous. However, as a recognised minority, russian speakers are afforded protections, along with other minorities.

Before 2014, and before the russian military sent troops and equipment to back separatist proxies, there wasn’t a war in Donbas. The loudest culture war arguments between russian and Ukrainian identity mostly played out among politicians and oligarchs who found them useful. For ordinary people in Donetsk and Luhansk, 2013 looked pretty normal: work, school, family life, sports. Life wasn’t affluent, but it was peaceful.

What changed everything was Russia’s direct military involvement in 2014. By supplying weapons, fighters, and command support, on the basis of exaggerated or outright false claims about threats to Russian speakers, it turned what had been political tension and limited unrest into a real war. Russia's intervention, not everyday life in Donbas, is what destroyed the stability people had.

Ah yes, the famous "free referendum" held under gunpoint, how could I forget?? Also, can you cite any source for the "ethnic cleansing" being perpetrated by the Ukrainian against the russians since 2014 in the Donetsk and Luhansk? Because the UN from when russia was still sitting in the council reports something completely different... https://share.google/XaamDlq40m8hEDyOG

Cowbee replied to you and included links to some propaganda websites, while your perfectly reasonable comment was removed because, looks up rule 1, you apparently weren't "civil and nice".

I spent the time fact-checking a few claims in that comment and one of the articles (first one I clicked on) in order to be able to confidently state what should be exceedingly obvious to all: Cowbee is intentionally spreading propaganda with lies and distortions.

That puts all of Cowbee's commentary into question.

I decided to look at just one of those websites, https://sarahwestall.com/yes-its-true-evidence-of-genocide-crimes-against-humanity-towards-russians-in-ukraine/, which has the following claims:

• In 2020, Russian-language schools were eliminated (in March 2020, Vladimir Zelensky signed the law “On Full General Secondary Education”, which eliminated Russian-language schools in the country from September 2020).
• IT'S A LIE, BECAUSE: https://ukranews.com/en/news/689826-zelenskyy-signs-secondary-education-law-with-3-ukrainian-language-learning-models-for-national / archive.org show that this was not a ban... Understandably controversial and worthy of debate, but clearly not a ban, therefore making it a lie.
• 14/06/2020 The Ministry of Culture of Ukraine has decided on the candidacy of a new language ombudsman, proposing for this position the extremely odious Lviv activist Svyatoslav Litinsky, who “Called Russians “pig-dogs””
• IT'S PROPAGANDA, BECAUSE: In June 2020, the Ministry of Culture considered potential candidates for the position because the first ombudsman, Tetyana Monakhova, resigned. Svyatoslav Litynskyi (Litinsky) was mentioned in media and activist circles as a possible candidate. He was never appointed. The position ultimately went to Taras Kremin (appointed July 2020), a far more moderate and mainstream figure.
• 05/08/2020 Irina Farion said that the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine remained “beyond the country’s historical paradigm.” “Their historical homeland is Muscovy, I really want them to be comfortable there. They must pack luggage – and go there. “They shoot us with their language”
• IT'S PROPAGANDA, BECAUSE: Irina Farion was a fringe extremist voice, not a representative of Ukraine or its government. Her statements reflect her ideology, not state policy, and using her quotes to claim persecution of Russian speakers is deeply misleading.
• 01/07/2021 The Verkhonva Rada adopted the law “On the indigenous peoples of Ukraine”, Russians were not included in the indigenous peoples
• IT'S PROPAGANDA, BECAUSE: Russians are not classified as an indigenous people because they have an existing nation-state (the russian federation). This means that they are considered a national minority, the same as hungarians or romanians, and not an indigenous people. This is standard international practice.
• In 2014, the future president of Ukraine, Zelensky, spoke to the Ukrainian military, who were carrying out a punitive operation in the Donbas. Zelensky said from the stage: “Guys, I bow to you that you are protecting us from all sorts of scum!”
• IT'S PROPAGANDA, BECAUSE: Zelensky did say words to the effect of: "thanking soldiers for defending Ukraine and protecting civilians from armed militants." In some recordings and reports, phrases like “захищаєте нас від усякої нечисті / всякого бруду” appear. This is colloquial Ukrainian/Russian slang, roughly meaning “armed thugs,” “criminals,” or “violent militants.” Crucially: He was not referring to civilians. He was not referring to Russian speakers. He was not referring to Donbas residents as a group. He was referring to armed groups fighting Ukrainian forces in 2014.

I encourage everyone to be vigilant against propaganda, and to avoid falling into the gish gallop trap that is commonly used. Take a short amount of quality time to pick one lie or one distortion of the truth apart, then call the poster/commenter out on it to ensure it isn't left unchallenged, then move on with your life.

Politics is politics. Votes swing, some percentage of people also place protest votes. Some percentage of any population are stupid, some just want to see the world burn. All people are influenced by propaganda and their own biases, and some percentage try to fight that by being discerning and politically engaged. Most people are somewhere in-between, just trying to get on with their lives while ignoring the torrent of shit that the world throws at them.... which is also a tactic used to disengage people.