7
submitted 3 months ago by Coupable@lemmy.world to c/main@sh.itjust.works

The mod banning these users is the same mod who made the posts they downvoted. This is mod abuse, turning the downvote button into an auto-self-ban button.

The message is "If you disagree with me, you will be banned"

Monitoring and banning users for using lemmy as intended to signal boost your opinion should be grounds to have all mod privileges removed. This behaviour undermines the integrity of the server and the wider fediverse.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 3 months ago

Yes one side of the door is for the community members, the other side of the door is for everyone else.

I've explained my philosophy comprehensively here: https://hackertalks.com/post/13884733

If you can find something inconsistent in that i'm happy to hear about it.

[-] ech@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

I read it. It's not good and neither are your analogies. There is no "door" if your community is on the front page of lemmy at large. You are taking advantage of the open nature of the service to openly publish your content while pretending that it's "only for you" and demanding that anyone that sees it outside of your community abide by your personal rules. If that's what you want, then a platform like lemmy is the wrong one for your community.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 3 months ago

I respectfully disagree, allowing a tyranny of negativity to rein simply because people have a niche belief - like AI, or diets, or religion, or politics isn't good for lemmy. It stifles the growth of lemmy, because everyone has some niche interest that should be part of the fediverse.

If every single part of the fediverse is for open referendum, that's going to chill lots of participation; it's much easier to hate many things, then to be so interested in something that you stick your neck out and brave the negativity.

If you really want to rage against some content, cross post it and have at it.

[-] ech@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

It is not reasonable to demand that every user that disagrees with a post publish their own counter-post. It's excessive, inefficient, and is antithetical to how the fediverse functions. Post voting is the bare minimum of participation. If that's still too "chilling", this is simply the wrong forum for what you're looking for, and trying to force the whole platform to bend to what you want it to be is just selfish.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com -1 points 3 months ago

I think our schism is philosophically intractable. I don't see the fediverse as one single homogeneous space. I see it as many small pools of heterogeneous activities and people. That can cross pollinate, cross communicate, and cross collaborate.

You're also asking the entire platform to bend to your will, to allow you to express your negativity wherever you like. I don't think that's sustainable for Lemmy either.

[-] ech@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

That can cross pollinate, cross communicate, and cross collaborate.

I agree that's how the fediverse should operate, and you're explicitly arguing to disallow this at your lone discretion. Your entire ethos that you're touting is about excluding those not part of your personal group. That's the exact opposite of open and collaborative.

You’re also asking the entire platform to bend to your will, to allow you to express your negativity wherever you like. I don’t think that’s sustainable for Lemmy either.

No, I'm saying mods like you shouldn't be allowed to abuse the openness of the fediverse while refusing to be subject to the same system everyone else is.

The public votes on the content of the forum. If that's unacceptable to you, then that's on you, not the forum.

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
7 points (88.9% liked)

sh.itjust.works Main Community

8323 readers
29 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

Matrix

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS