Hello I'm not a person who is affected by this community moderator but I'm posting on behalf of people who are, since they don't seem to know of this community yet. I attempted to reach some via DM but I'm not sure they'll respond. So I'm making this post since I feel this needs to be addressed.
Recently I was made aware of a community that appeared randomly on Lemmy.world. It seems to be a troll community given the type of content, but the reason I'm posting about it here specifically is that this mod seems to be banning anyone who points this out or goes against his narrative. Furthermore he is only using the autoremove on ban function, not removing any content the users have posted, which I believe is deliberate in attempt to prevent the content from showing up under the modlog and revealing the hypocrisy.
Some samples of comments:
Comment from: @glimse@lemmy.world
Everything else you posted has been pretty cringe but what he fuck is up with this one, dude lol
comment from: @rain_worl@lemmy.world
free software is SLOWING DOWN tech advancement??????? WHAT???????
comment from: @rain_worl@lemmy.world
comment from: @the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
First off, nice new community. I look forward to days of quality posts such as this./s
Second, how many Linux distros have this level of data collection, and what is their estimated market share?
Original comment link
All of these were retrieved from the API, even though they aren't included in the modlogs, I could've included more but it's kind of a time consuming process to look for them and retrieve them. Viewing removed comments is easier on Lemmy than it is on Reddit but it still isn't easy.
What do you guys think, does this seem like power-tripping? Also does this person's content seem like blatant troll content?
CC: @glimse@lemmy.world @rain_worl@lemmy.world @the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
People who's comments I mentioned, I CCed them so they know I did this on their behalf
Okay well they were banned from the instance for trolling. I think many people thought they clearly were doing so.
Certainly. But I never felt that way.
Technically, they were banned for: “constant attacks on other users, sealioning and general bad faith discussions and baseless accusations” which might be adjacent to trolling but I think is a more fair and objective description of their behavior.
The problem with trolling is that it’s usually not possible to identify with certainty because it depends on a person’s intent and state of mind. In your judgment Linkerbaan was trolling. In mine they weren’t. But who is right? There’s no way to be certain, it’s just a guess based on their behavior. That’s why I don’t think it should be used in moderation decisions. It’s just too subjective.
A user who constantly accuses anyone who disagrees with them of holding horrifying offensive views is a troll in my book. I think that's pretty reasonable.
But that's not what trolling means. Frankly, I'm starting to think this term is doing more harm than good in building more positive, informed, and respectful online communities. Trolling can theoretically be any type of behavior that another user doesn't like--but it has to be intended to cause those feelings. But as I said, we can't know each others intentions, and of course, bad actors are likely to lie about them. It's better to describe things in terms of objective actions a user took. The description you give here is a fine basis for a ban--but it's still not possible to say it was trolling.
The reason this bothers me is that many tightly regulated echo chambers, including some highlighted on this community, accusations of trolling are levied against anyone who doesn't toe the party line. Presentation of inconvenient or disliked facts may cause a negative emotional reaction--but that's not trolling unless the emotional reaction was the purpose of the interaction. I think at least some of the backlash against Linkeraan was due to their treatment of other users. But at least some was also because they were not willing to let people ignore the complicity of the US and the Democratic Party in the mass killings in Gaza. I think that's an important truth that risks being drowned out or silenced, but obviously it should be voiced in a way that is more respectful.
You cannot force me to adopt your definition of trolling, not that it would even matter what you called it.
Do you think we have a different definition? I honestly hadn’t considered that. What is your definition then?
Scroll up. I won't argue or defend my position as I think it's pretty reasonable and obvious to most
An example isn’t a definition but it doesn’t seem like you’re too interested in this conversation so I’ll leave it at that.
Great points. Many Lemmy users think I'm a troll, because I have advocated for third parties in this year's election. And well, I get accused of being a "russian bot" a lot too. lol
They say I post in bad faith. But I actually voted third party (socialist) and sent in my ballot this past weekend, I created and mod two socialist communities, and most of my posts skew socialist topics.
So if I believe what I am saying and posting, am I really arguing in bad faith or trolling just because the majority of Lemmy doesn't agree with me?!
Is it really "bad faith" just because Lemmy tried, yet didn't change my mind?
So many lately are quick to shout "Troll!" or "Sealioning" when it's really just because the comment or post is an opinion not shared by a majority here.
In my opinion, what makes Lemmy better that Reddit (so far!), is that it's NOT an echo chamber.
For the record, I had some comments removed for "sealioning" and I legit had never heard the term before Lemmy and I had to look it up to even understand it. And I'm still not sure what it has to do with sealion or why that term was chosen.
In fact, me saying I didn't understand it, was the very comment that got removed for sealioning. lmao
In the seventy days since this account was created it has made five thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight submissions to Lemmy.
That averages out to once every seventeen minutes and thirty seconds, twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
If they spend eight hours a day on Lemmy Monday to Friday that’s a a submission every four minutes and ten seconds.
I can’t tell if this is a weird joke or if you’re seeing something I’m not. When I click their profile I see a few hundred posts.
Look at it in the Lemmy.world instance, not all submissions are federated to yours.
I assure you my numbers are accurate.
OK, I’m just wary of taking anything you say at face value due to some past posts haha.
Fair.
There are so much drastically dishonest and untrue things in this comment, I'm not even sure where to start. No one cares what you share, they care about your obvious dishonesty in saying why you do it.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, I tried to have a real dialogue, and you just double down on the trolling.
Such as? What is the obvious dishonesty?
Let me guess; me asking that question is "sealioning," right? Is this where you are gonna reply with the sea lion comic?
As you've asked before, and I've answered before, I'll just offer the same explanation I offered yesterday that you never responded to - you know where you were once again offering lists of grievances (specifically in /politics)
But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you're doing. You claim innocence, "I didn't write the article" but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying "I don't have to explain anything!". Which is true, in so far as when you don't explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.
Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has "tells" of one type or another. We're human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that's fine. And that's just as true of other people guessing when I've posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.
But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That's not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there's so many who believe you're a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you're not being honest.
As for the rest, please don't pretend that you haven't been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.
You keep acting like it's the articles you post that are the problem when it's your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don't think I've ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It's obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.
And don't do your usual "Just block me if you don't like it!" When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it's just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you're wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else's mind.
But don't be dishonest about why you're doing whatever it is you think you're doing here. Don't hide behind "I didn't write the article" and "I don't have to explain anything to anyone". You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.
Modlog: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
And that has what to do with what exactly? Would it make it easier if we just do your account on /politics because here's that: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252?page=1&userId=9454261
You asked about your dishonesty and I gave an explanation, and you replied with the modlog for a community we both post in. More bad faith engagement with other users it seems, and/or you never bothered to read the answer to the question you asked.
So someone attempts to actually reason with you and once again, another downvote and no reply - after you asked me a question. What are you so afraid of?
You answer that with four of your own questions.
Such as?
What is the obvious dishonesty?
Let me guess, me asking that question is "sealioning," right?
Is this where you are gonna reply with the sea lion comic?
It’s from a webcomic so yeah if you haven’t seen it then the connection seems strange. It’s just a random placeholder for a certain type of behavior, it has nothing to do with real sea lions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I've linked the definition for him before and he got a temp ban for it. He knows the definition.
I was kind of wondering if that could be the case but I’ve just found the internet to be far more enjoyable if you just assume everyone is here in good faith. It might be a little naive but I’d much rather assume good intentions where bad ones exist than the opposite if I’m at all uncertain.
Yeah, understandable and even admirable. Thanks!
Hey! You inspired me, so thank you!
The Man Who Hunted Sea Lions on Lemmy: https://lemmy.world/post/21037978
So I am reading it, and I guess I am dull, but the description sounds like just "trolling" would work. And I look at the cartoon, and I don't see the sea lion as being ingenious. I mean, the dude brought it up, the sea lion is calling him out on it.
So the fact I don't get it, even after the toon, explains how I got in trouble for sealioning because the comic doesn't seem like the seal is the bad guy. But the description is just trolling. So I don't know the reason for the new term. I think trolling suffices.
EDIT: Fuck. Now everyone is going to think I'm sealioning because of this comment, aren't they? lol sigh...
I think the sea lion in the comic is being criticized for being overly persistent in demanding evidence and a debate with people who never wanted to discuss anything with him. But yeah it’s a bit weird because they start the interaction by publicly criticizing the sea lion, so of course he wants to defend himself. And while it’s obviously over the line to pursue people demanding they debate you about something, that’s not really a thing that happens in online discourse—it’s easy enough to just ignore someone. So I’ve never found it a concept that makes much sense to me.
Thank you! Because online we can just block someone. I was beginning to think I was crazy on thinking people were overusing it. So thanks, friend!
Ok, I didn't add onto my previous reply, because wasn't sure if you have seen it or not.
So in another thread, someone is accusing me of sealioning right now. But I don't think this is the proper use of it. This doesn't seem to be what it is. I'm literally asking someone for proof of an accusation. And they aren't giving it and I get this cartoon instead.
So are people just gonna say 'sealioning' anytime someone asks for proof or links now?!
Seems a misuse of the term as I know it. https://lemmy.world/comment/12941934
I’m probably not the right person to answer this because I think sealioning is another nebulous term that can mean a variety of things, similar to trolling. If you want to call someone out for bad behavior, I think you need to be specific about what they did in clear terms that everyone will understand.
But, to my understanding, demanding evidence for something perceived as obvious or self evident in a seemingly polite but deliberate attempt to annoy or waste people’s time is one form of sealioning. I’m not saying that’s what you did but perhaps it’s what they believe.
But that’s kind of the issue I was discussing here. What’s obvious to me may not be to you and vice-versa. So it’s hard or impossible to know if that’s what’s happening in any specific example.
Fair points! And that's where I'm at on it. If someone is gonna accuse me, then show me the link where I said something attacking or whatever.
After I see the link, I have a better idea of why they are thinking something and I can either explain myself or realize my mistake, or agree to disagree.
But just dropping the comic when I'm asking for proof, seems absurd to me. If they wanna drop the comic in their comment with the link, cool, but at least I need to know what specific instance they are referring to.
Thank you!