Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem
Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem
I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy's massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It's been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let's say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they're what's colloquially referred to as tankies. This wouldn't be much of an issue if they didn't regularly abuse their admin/mod status to censor and silence people who dissent with their political beliefs and for example, post things critical of China, Russia, the USSR, socialism, ...
As an example, there was a thread today about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. When I was reading it, there were mostly posts critical of China in the thread and some whataboutist/denialist replies critical of the USA and the west. In terms of votes, the posts critical of China were definitely getting the most support.
I posted a comment in this thread linking to "https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs" (WARNING: graphical content), which describes aspects of the atrocities that aren't widely known even in the West, and supporting evidence. My comment was promptly removed for violating the "Be nice and civil" rule. When I looked back at the thread, I noticed that all posts critical of China had been removed while the whataboutist and denialist comments were left in place.
This is what the modlog of the instance looks like:
Definitely a trend there wouldn't you say?
When I called them out on their one sided censorship, with a screenshot of the modlog above, I promptly received a community ban on all communities on lemmy.ml that I had ever participated in.
Proof:
So many of you will now probably think something like: "So what, it's the fediverse, you can use another instance."
The problem with this reasoning is that many of the popular communities are actually on lemmy.ml, and they're not so easy to replace. I mean, in terms of content and engagement lemmy is already a pretty small place as it is. So it's rather pointless sitting for example in /c/linux@some.random.other.instance.world where there's nobody to discuss anything with.
I'm not sure if there's a solution here, but I'd like to urge people to avoid lemmy.ml hosted communities in favor of communities on more reasonable instances.
You're viewing a single thread.
I've defended lemmy.ml in the past when people have blamed the entire instance for the actions of a solitary, overzealous moderator, but this genuinely concerns me:
This must have been action taken at the instance admin level, considering all those communities have different moderators.
Is there any way to probe the modlog to see which account it was?
I can't see those, specifically, but a similar pattern of mass community bans after even remotely criticizing an authoritarian regime is completely on brand for Dessalines.
I don't have record of the comment that triggered these, but when it's something like civility, it's usually just a comment removal and maybe a single community ban.
Imagine that - a white dude who appropriates the moniker of an actual slave revolutionary as a symbol for his "cause" might be cringe and unhinged.
Really stupid. Dont forget the Che hated homosexuals as well and he wrote a letter to one of his family members saying he found a meaning for his life "Killing people"
See https://lemmy.world/comment/10467647
It seems this is just a new feature in the upcoming relase (the communities ban).
Interesting.
Still, site bans for criticizing China is just as bad, if not worse as mass community banning.
Yes, but that fact is well known and at least this shows there was no particular intention to chastise the user - it was just a button press.
The punishment was easy, so the intent wasn't as great. You know, the difference between a bullet to the head and repeated bashing with a rock. I'm sure in all these instances, the lack of effort was a relief to the target of the action.
Every point can be supported with an analogy bad enough
Gonna put this out there. Ended up in a thread on ML the other day. The poster/admin got a little unhinged, over 4 down votes. 4. Took to the admin panel to see who dared down vote him. Convinced he had been the victim of the tiniest not swarm ever.
It's troubling behavior for anyone with power.
Lol, is that why they removed scores from the API? 😆
Downvotes are public on Lemmy fyi. There are interfaces that show who voted on a post or comment.
For admins, yes. I was pointing that out in the picture of the responses I posted. But not for General users.
Even regular users can see them through other federated services like kbin AFAIK. They show up under likes and dislikes.
I see downvotes
I can see them through the lemmy reader app I use.
You gotta admit, it's very suspicious to be massively downvoted (25, not 4) over an inconspicuous comment that merely highlights a few paragraphs of the linked article.
I know I would also be wondering if there was a pattern in the origin of those downvotes.
Unless you're being down voted massively on every comment and post, ignore it and move on.
I would imagine that if an admin is doing this the modlog could simply be faked, you wouldn't be able to trust anything that the instance is reporting to the outside world.
Only admins can do site bans. What you're seeing is a hacky/temporary feature of the upcoming Lemmy v19.4, of which lemmy.ml is running the pre-release: when an admin bans someone from the site (temp or otherwise), it also automatically bans them from any community they have ever participated in. Lemmy.ml has always been the "beta" instance for new releases.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the heads up.
This is actually more evidence that the Lemmy devs run a modified version of the code which gives them the ability to, eg do things like dole out mass community bans. There is also some evidence that they selectively federate the mod log as well. It all points to the obvious conclusion that these people can and will abuse their power in any way they can.
I'm pretty sure any admin could do that with their Lemmy server, couldn't they?
Yes, an admin probably has access to community level moderation rights and the lemmy API is not difficult to figure out.
It would be trivial to come up with a script to go through the community page, get all the current communities and iterate through them banning a user in each of them.
I have had comments removed and could never see why. Now I just block their instances.
They roleplay as communist censors since that's all they can afford to do from their positions.
They specifically obfuscate which mods take what actions so you can't appeal or even defend.
Tbh, also harass a mod. People get quite worked out when being moderated, and being a mod is enough work without people chasing you to argue with you or straight up harass you, I suppose. At least, I can see plenty of good reasons to hide the moderator name.
Then have a mod box or something. What they currently do is, "Post removed. Reason. Rule 1."
No details, no appeal, nada.
What does this have to do with showing mod log? Genuinely confused
If they act on a post or comment, there's no way to ask why or see what their actual reasoning was. So it allows blanket censorship without a paper trail.
It does, but it's an online forum, not an essential service, and easy to replace. On the other hand, being there with your name or nickname exposes you to harassment from those pissed at you for your decision.
I would say it's an acceptable evil given the circumstances.
As a side note: asking why after a mod action is almost universally pointless. Moderating is free work and a level of subjectivity is implied. I think not having the ability to argue is infuriating but understandable.
My experience with them is you can't even find the modlog if you look when they remove comments. I guess they don't federate it and/or it only shows if you're logged in?
Good incentives to block their instances.
To quote the reason why calling out mods by name is forbidden from a previous encounter I had with them: "removed for doxxing"
So yeah I think you're giving them too much credit here
I am not sure I understood. You called some mod by name and they removed the comment? If that's the case, I perfectly understand and agree with the decision tbh.
That said, this is a general argument, not referred to any particular mod. I think that many people get angry when their content is moderated and they might want to harass/argue/avenge against the mod who took that action.
You agree that tagging the username of a mod (wasn't even one it was an admin) is doxxing? If so, you're delusional.
Mod names are visible by default on my instance so if taking a look there and then mentioning the username you see there is doxxing good luck with the rest of your life. You can't have a system where everyone can easily find out who performed a mod action and then claim you were "doxxed"
No sorry, you said name as in the person's name, I did not understand "username".
well in this particular case it wouldn't have mattered, I used the username but the admin in question has their clear name set as the display name (which made the whole "doxxing" claim even funnier to me)
Why, so you can censor some more posts critical of China?
The modlog of this sub is absolutely ridiculous:
Guessing that was the comment they made to trigger it. Seems perfectly reasonable after starting off just attacking them
Dude literally started it by doing comment in their mod request post
Perfectly reasonable to ban someone from completely unrelated communities like mechanical keyboard and arch Linux? Come on. It's not like they're throwing out toxic terms or criticizing on a personal level. They're questioning the way things are being modded. Those aren't even attacks.
They banned from the instance. Apparently the fact that you get banned from hosted communities is just a new feature.
The criticism is warranted. They don’t even equally apply their own rules depending on context
They're doing it specifically to piss off the mods. That's the context. It was the pinned mod request for it
I think you have a very different definition of "perfectly reasonable" than most people.