this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
188 points (93.5% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
749 readers
62 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Yes it could encourage it more - granted - and if it became a large problem then all the more reason to remain vigilant. But... why not allow the end user the choice? This is "social media", we are just chatting here! And if someone knows themselves well enough to realize how easily they get triggered and want a different experience than those of us who would leave that feature turned off, why should they be prevented from such? The fact that this is an "option" provided for the end user to choose from is the crucial difference imho, rather than leave every decision to the admins and mods.
Unless you take the viewpoint that people are too stupid to make choices for themselves and need to be controlled so that they receive solely what is "best" for them - which might or might not be a valid topic we could argue but I was ignoring it here.
And yes, people who have such controversial content filtering will not see... controversial content, by design? That's not a bug though, it's a feature? Really! You can turn off that feature - I likewise already have (it was virtually literally the first thing I did upon making my PieFed account) - but if someone wants such content to be hidden/removed, then that is their choice, yeah?
There is a HUGE difference though - don't you see how blocking users blocks entire USERS, while blocking content (e.g. an individual comment underneath a post) blocks only each individual item of content? It's a rather ENORMOUS difference actually? What if a user posts both politics and also memes and you enjoy the latter though cannot stand the former? Also, blocking is permanent, no matter how many years pass between the decision and later content.
Granted that it is up to the mods in question, but PieFed at least offers additional choices that can be made - just as in the example I have regarding Trump and Musk, controversial content could be left in, trusting that those that do not want to see it can choose to filter it out, rather than submit a complaint to the mods (or admins) that they would prefer that such filtering work be done for them (bc once you see something it really is too late to unsee it). Here, one community can have multiple types of users rather than have to make a separate community to serve all the variety of needs.
Which drastically reduces the burden of moderation, as well as increases choice, and encourages posting content that otherwise people may be too hesitant to post for wondering how the community will respond, positively or negatively or neutral. In PieFed it is no longer about the binary decision to "remove content" vs. "not remove content", but rather connecting users with the content that they most want to see - in part, yes, by filtering out content that the users do not want to see, since attention is a limited commodity.
I made no judgement on whether it should be a feature or not. But it does not resolve the need for mods to address people systematically downvoting, or the risk of mods misusing that power.
Narrowly, yes you are correct. The comment I was originally replying to was:
Which is how we got into whether those features create echo chambers (as Lemmy already provides for as well) rather than facilitate user choices. I was pointing out how PieFed mods have one additional option beyond what Lemmy mods have: the ability to not remove a comment or post even if it is controversial and thus highly downvoted, knowing that they can rely upon the end users (those that want to) using those filters to ignore the content. i.e. PieFed allows mods to be more lenient, if they so choose, the very polar opposite of an "echo chamber effect".
Any system still allows for abuses, of course, and PieFed's all the more relies upon detection of systemic abuses. Although so too have several apps - I am not sure which ones offered such automatic hiding and removal features (perhaps Sync and/or Connect?) but its offering by PieFed was not entirely novel.
Furthermore this is an age-old problem: how to detect and remove spam while preserving legitimate content, how to filter pornography while allowing proper e.g. medical uses, how to stop cancerous cells while allowing the body to heal using cell division normally? Nothing will ever be perfect. Anyway, PieFed provides some features, which people can choose to use or not, as they please. I have argued that no they are not actually "built-in echo chamber features"... even while yes they can be abused towards that end of the spectrum (hence my original answer, "Yes, and maybe, plus no." - which was not intended to be entirely comprehensive, even if it did delve a bit into some details).