I have seen people banned from lemmy.world for linking to the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

You might want to have a look at that thread: https://lemmy.ml/post/20225047

There are six mods in that community and presumably they operate on a consensus basis with a decision like this.

I've been a part of and seen dysfunctional mod teams in the past. There's no guarantee of consensus. There's not even a guarantee of all six mods being aware that there's a dispute - especially since Lemmy's mod tools are not the greatest.

288 of local users that are also subscribed to !world@lemmy.world blocked the bot, which is about 1.2%.

when it comes to the topic of lying, it seems more like a misunderstanding from what i've heard after these comments were written.

Given the tiny percent of subscribed users who are bothered enough to actually block the bot, I don't know if "heavy criticism" is really accurate here. Its more of a (very) vocal minority trying to push their minority view on the vast majority who either like it or don't care. A 1.2% block rate is an amazingly good result for a bot I'd have thought.

What do you think now the block rate has been published in the comments? Should communities change their defaults to cater to the vocal 1.2% of subscribers who can (and have) easily blocked the bot anyway, or make the assumption that 98.8% of users either don't care, or find it useful, and cater to them instead? A vocal minority like that can make a lot of noise, but it seems pretty clear they aren't representative of the vast majority of users.

If it helps to reveal my personal bias: I recall personally taking a look at that bot when it first came out, and commenting against it, plus downvoting it often after that. I did not go so far as to block it but nowadays I do simply ignore it every time I see it. I am not a fan - and this despite the fact that I consistently say things along the lines that we (as humans, and a global Lemmy/Fediverse community) NEED such a tool.

Though after reading through the comments, I have more respect for it than I once did. It seems an imperfect solution to a difficult problem. There are definitely kinks to work out, like how it receives advertising money and looks to be giving kickbacks to the LW admins, as they are the ones receiving either all or at least a portion of that money. Mind you, those funds might not even defray a fraction of their operating costs, so I cannot come down firmly on the side of a "judgement" here, just saying that the deeper one peers into this, the more murky the situation gets, when money gets involved.

Also oddly, I both have more respect for it, yet potentially less than ever before, given how it may inappropriately combine unrelated scores in a manner that serves to further right-wing propaganda. HOWEVER, again, that is nation-dependent, which while this is in reference to a global community, the bot itself seems to originate in the USA, so again... if someone wants to make another one, then they need to get busy and make it happen - which I noted seeing one such example, and the admins say that they welcome it and would love to add it to the bot to present both.

Anyway, what I find most highly striking is how both sides have valid points. Not the REEEEEE obviously (sadly, that appears on both sides as well - which is all the more notable when coming from a position of leadership and authority than a mere user who wants to vent their uninformed opinions), but beyond that, the admins are right to say that e.g. what other options are available that do not cost money that is not available to be spent? And yes, as you pointed out, the community has a valid point that they don't want to merely block it and move on, b/c then new users are going to still be exposed to it - if it is true that it is a bad thing, then it needs to be opposed from existing at all, or at least the labelling must be substantially improved. "First they came for..." means that we live in a global society, so that things that impact others (the least of these...) should be cared about as well, rather than our concern restricted to solely those matters that affect us directly.

And too, the community PAYS for the admins. I don't know how much, but some, so there is a sense of "ownership" there. Hence people not wanting to simply switch over to e.g. !globalnews@lemmy.zip, which is quite a nice alternative even if people don't seem to know about it (lemmy.zip says that it has 2.72K active users/month, compared to lemmy.world saying that !world@lemmy.world has 12K).

Another aspect is how the bot must be "opt-out" rather than opt-in. Much like receiving updates from ChapoTrapHouse or people's comments from lemmy.ml are on so very many instances (especially lemm.ee) - there are some things that should be opt-in, rather than people exposed to that crap first and then they have to opt-out. The counterpoint is that the technology available for Lemmy suck ass; and yet with the heavy still further counterpoint that Lemmy is still better than most anything else I have ever seen? So the admins seem to have a point that while the tool being opt-out rather than opt-in is not ideal, that is a limitation that they are constrained to having to work with.

Ultimately, as you said, it boils down to (like Reddit): will people simply put up with it, or move? !globalnews@lemmy.zip exists, and !world@quokk.au seems more problematic but it too, and someone can always create another. Or someone can do the hard work to create actual GitHub repo feature requests, like adding in a sentence to say how much the bot is biased towards the USA definitions of left and right, or they could create a post to talk about it. MOST people talking about it though - including myself - are not all that well-informed about the situation, especially prior to reading these links that Blaze offered today. Thus it will require someone actually stepping up to do work, or else what good does all the complaining do? That much at least I understand from the admin & mod's perspectives, even as I also understand the other side's POV that the situation is far from ideal, and might even be a for-profit conspiracy to drive up advertising revenue from their tool, on their instance, in their community, that nonetheless uses (abuses?) the federation principles to be sent out to people around the world. Thus the situation represents a microcosm of "news" in general around the world: ultimately, who is going to pay for it, and if nobody, then how can we complain when it goes away (or awry)?

This ofc is a lot of words to say that "I do not know fully what is going on, but it's interesting nonetheless". :-)

Very well put.