So I started a piefed account, mostly for my writing so that dbzer0 (and Lemmy) wouldn’t have to put up with all my weird fiction stories all the time. Plus, I wanted to check out the biggest Piefed space, piefed.social, because I'm excited about some of the new concepts they are bringing to the table.
I created a writing community, a Socialist community, and a Green Party community there today.
Nothing outrageous or controversial. I posted one news article in each of the Socialist and Green Party communities, and a couple to my writing comm.
The Socialist and Writing communities were local only, so they wouldn’t even show up in the larger Fediverse. I only posted in my own communities. No controversy intended, none created.
I just got banned, almost immediately after starting the communities. The reason in the mod log says: "Universal Monk".
The admin, @rimu@piefed.social, hasn't replied to my DM asking why (yet). I guess being me is reason enough. I feel so famous! Or maybe infamous?
I'm still a libertarian socialist tho! Piefed.social and Lemmy ain't gonna change my mind.
Oh, I already know how the votes (down) here are gonna go! But doing my part in adding content to Lemmy anyway; being the change I wanna see. No regrets! :)
EDIT: I'm posting this here, and I've repeated it in this thread. Just in case piefed.social banned me on the assumption that I’m “conservative” because I’ve posted links to conservative news articles… then, by that same logic, shouldn’t I also be considered socialist and anarchist because I post so much socialist and anarchist content? I actually post way more socialist content than anything else. And there is nothing in my fiction writing that is conservative at all. My entire post history is public, it doesn't take much effort to see that I post practically anything I find interesting.
I honestly don't know what you've done to piss the libs off quite that much. Not even some of the hardcore tankies get so instabanned.
UM used to post conservative articles in the past
Allegedly, it was to "post political posts of all angles to that sub, including conservative articles", but some people interpreted this as trolling/sea lioning
Then why is he on an anarchist instance, supporting the socialist parties and hating Trump?
--
https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/27847487?scrollToComments=true
Maybe UM had a change of mind since a few months ago, but there was definitely a time when he was posting straight far right stances
I still stand by the fact that I think extremism on both sides of the duo-centric political spectrum erode free thought and free speech. I've always believed, and said, that Lemmy should be open to a diversity of opinion, even conservatives. Even if I don't agree with everything they say, I see no reason that people shouldn't be allowed to post their articles.
I'm a libertarian socialist, as I’ve said many times, and I’ve posted far more links to socialist, anarchist, and libertarian articles than to conservative ones. I haven’t written any conservative articles, I’ve only shared links
But I have written original socialist content.
So again, if the logic is that I’m a conservative simply because I’ve posted links to conservative viewpoints, then shouldn’t that same logic apply to the hundreds of socialist and anarchist posts I’ve shared?
Not only have I linked to leftist content, I’ve also written original articles for Lemmy about socialism, supported digital piracy, and highlighted the work and biographies of lesser-known but respected socialists and anarchists.
If I were truly conservative, why would I put so much effort into promoting socialist and anarchist causes in a positive light?
The reality is that I see value in diversity of opinions. And I'm shocked that an educated audience like Lemmy's are so opposed to that.
I also posted socialist anarchist content in the past. And to copypasta what I said elsewhere in this thread: Using the logic a lot of people on Lemmy seem to apply: if I'm “conservative” just because I’ve posted links to conservative articles… then, by that same logic, shouldn’t I also be considered socialist and anarchist because I post so much socialist and anarchist content?
Not to mention I have posted way more socialist/anarchist content than links to conservative news articles.
The truth is, I'm not a fascist; I'm a narcissist. If I read something and think it's interesting, I rush to Lemmy and post it, no matter the quality. :)
Breitbart isn't just "a conservative source," it's far right propaganda disguised as news.
I think some of their opinions are interesting, and it’s not like they’re posting illegal content. When you see it's Breitbart, you already know what you're in for. There are plenty of left-leaning propaganda sites disguised as news too. It’s not unique to the right.
What really frustrates me is the lack of popular socialist news outlets. I wish we had more of them, so I post what I can from the few that exist.
I’m not mad that Breitbart is popular, I’m mad that socialist sites aren’t just as popular or well-funded. That’s the real issue for me.
Right?! They don't even give a real reason now. Just putting "Universal Monk" as the ban reason feels so lazy to me. And honestly, back before the election—when I was supposedly so controversial—nothing I said or posted even came close to the shit I see people saying on Lemmy now.
If anyone goes back and looks at my posts, where I supposedly caused all that "trouble," it’s laughable compared to the hardcore stuff people say today. Like people were legit pissed that I liked the Green Party and then the Socialist party. People ended up writing programs to track me, asking for investigations into me (still happens, someone just asked a guy to write a Lemmy program to investigate me a few days ago), noting times I posted, telling me that I would die on the war front in Russia, saying that I was trying trying to destroy Lemmy, etc.
And look at Lemmy now, baby! lol
Oh, and I'm sorry in advance for the messages you're probably about to get once people notice I'm still on your instance. Maybe they've calmed down by now though.
He called out that supporting genocide is a bad position to claim the moral ground on. That's why the turbolibs hate him.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/49158164/20132454