geteilt von: https://lemmy.world/post/41163572
Both mods are also moderators of announcements@discuss.online; they are admins, this is their instance, and they are engaging in vote tampering to boost their instance and its communities over the rest of the fediverse.
jgrim@discuss.online m_f@discuss.online
PTB. Just disable downvotes on your instance if they bother you that much. That’s what Beehaw did, and they’re doing just fine.
Imagine being this upset because someone clicked a on-screen button that makes the number that you don’t like go higher.
Totally fucking normal way to be.
I love the token downvote and how it hasn’t bothered you in the slightest.
If mods or admins get their panties in a bunch about downvotes, why don’t they just disable downvotes, or move to an instance who does? Several fediverse instances already do that.
that would require getting over their ego. a large task for those that think they’re the center of the fediverse.
PTB absolutely.
But how will they the upvotes they so desperately want?
I get mods doing it, but if you’re an instance admin there’s really no reason not to just turn off downvotes
Looks pretty clearly like ptb trying to play the algorithm. I’ll probably be server blocking them on my account, if not suggesting everyone defederate.
Not that I matter all that much.
Hey, you matter.
And so do you!
And you do too!
You as well!
PTB for sure.
Oooh, ban me too!
Are these instance bans or community bans being handed out?
It clearly shows in the screenshot that they are community bans. From a tiny community with barely any users and frankly, barely any posts total, and on a fairly small instance to boot.
The call to fully defederate from the entire instance (see cross-post) for this is very much overblown - i.e. if anyone is getting their panties in a knot, it is OP, though I do not have sufficient information to comment on the community bannings (chiefly, if they were banning random downvoters vs. serial bot-like behaviors). My lengthy reply elsewhere.
That’s not quite how the mod-log seems to show data. If a user gets banned from discuss.online, the mod-log will instead just show the user being banned from every single discuss.online community they’ve ever posted on - hard-banning you from the instance and specific communities you’ve posted on. So if you had only posted to 1 community, it might look like a community ban. This also means that that you don’t get hard-banned from communities on said instance that you haven’t posted to, meaning you could effectively continue to post in them - except your content won’t federate. I pointed this out before here.
It’s a funky system.
That’s… highly odd, and unusual behavior. But even as you described it, I disagree then that it is an “instance ban”, if you can still post to Discuss.Online after being banned from those communities. It sounds rather like an over-active moderator of multiple communities who upon banning someone from one of them also bans them from the others. Which might be a PTB, though depends heavily on the facts of each case, since it is exceedingly well-known that there are in fact trolls on Lemmy who consistently attempt to evade bans by making new accounts.
Anyway, if it is an over-active mod, then just block them and switch to post in other communities? Bam, problem solved.
The concern here I guess is whether that mod inappropriately abused their admin powers, thereby escalating the situation from one to multiple communities up to the instance level. Although I did not see sufficient evidence to confidently assert the outcome there one way or another, especially given how things such as lemvotes and the (paid iirc) Boost 3rd party app exists so any mod could in theory do the same… right?
I went through 29 comments you made in the provided link - we really need an “expand all” or a “search through comments to this post” functionality:-).
That’s… highly odd, and unusual behavior. But even as you described it, I disagree then that it is an “instance ban”, if you can still post to Discuss.Online after being banned from those communities.
That’s the thing. If you’re banned from an instance, you can still post to communities on that instance - they just won’t federate out. Only community bans hard-lock a user from being able to post to a community.
I went through 29 comments you made in the provided link - we really need an “expand all” or a “search through comments to this post” functionality:-).
I’ll quote myself:
As far as I know, if someone from lemmy.world is banned on lemmy.zip (an example) - they are only directly banned from lemmy.zip communities they have commented on. This is why the modlog shows users simultaneously banned from like a dozen comms at once from time-to-time - they’ve just been banned from an instance
But any communities on lemmy.zip that the user banned from lemmy.zip hasn’t commented on, they can still post there. It just doesn’t federate out.
That means a user from lemmy.world could be a nuisance on a lemmy.zip community without the local lemmy.zip mods noticing. This absolutely happens on piefed bans of lemmy users now, and I assume the same in reverse. I saw a user banned from piefed.social still posting on my television@piefed.social community from lemmy.world, but it just doesn’t federate out.
Wait… WHAT!? That’s SO much worse than shadow-banning, primarily because it is exactly shadow-banning, except it’s not, except it is. Lemmy really needs to move faster to fix these FOUNDATIONAL cracks involving (checks notes) “making posts to communities”. Is the issue at least fixed on the PieFed side?
The more time that passes, the more that I am laughing that lemmy.ml mods have been doing what OP claimed that the DO mods did since Lemmy started, but there
nobody bats an eyeno major instances seem to care, whereas here one person gets banned from a single instance and immediately out go the calls for full defederation of the entire instance, with most people calling him a PTB. Which might be the case, but the evidence presented is nowhere close to sufficient to demonstrate that, given rule #4 of that community.Btw I (hope that I) never claimed that lemmy.ml did not have the right to ban people who were not a fit for their communities - only that doing so for hidden reasons that are never written down anywhere is what makes them authoritarian. Which here those mods seemed to have done, with their rule #4? (It also makes them authoritarian to have done so without telling people, and I strongly hope that PieFed is not making that mistake as well - not shadow banning people is basically the primary claim to fame for Lemmy, other than the hope for something better in the future, which as the years drag on and the software remains just as if not more authoritarian than Reddit, the latter waxes mighty thin these days.)
Wait… WHAT!? That’s SO much worse than shadow-banning, primarily because it is exactly shadow-banning, except it’s not, except it is. Lemmy really needs to move faster to fix these FOUNDATIONAL cracks involving (checks notes) “making posts to communities”. Is the issue at least fixed on the PieFed side?
Yes, I think so. I bought the attention to Rimu. Piefed - Piefed bans should function properly. Maybe I’ll make an alt to test this.
Dessalines did reply to me saying they plan to fix that in the eventual update.
Maybe in 10 years they will. Dessalines is far too busy wasting time constantly banning people for disagreeing with him or criticizing his favourite regimes instead of developing his platform. There’s a reason Piefed is overtaking Lemmy in development speed and quality.
That’s fantastic. It is likewise not ideal that a user blocking all people from an instance leaves open the possibility for those users to still comment… although Rimu explained to me over a year ago that would be the case, given that PieFed is interacting with Lemmy and Lemmy simply does not support the ability to block people who are not “blocked” in the traditional sense.
But now to find that Lemmy doesn’t even implement community blocks correctly, wow, just wow.
I’ve seen issue requests laying in wait for Lemmy for 5+ years, so excuse me if I have no faith in hearing that something will be fixed “eventually”. Ironically I have such great respect for those devs for making their sourcecode available free of charge, but also I’ve learned not to trust what they say as it often does not match up with reality (unless in a highly specific sense as in the *next" code release).
It actually makes a lot of sense: they write the software to function for Lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml, and if anyone else wants to use it, that’s fine but it’s not their top priority at all. Which apart from their apologists across Lemmy, the devs themselves are fairly open about:
If you dont like it, fork it. Stop bothering us about it,
Is the mod there another Donald J Musk alt?
This is a microcosm of what is currently going on in the usa political world. I think being a Luddite is the answer and talking to your neighbours instead of internet people is probably a way more positive experience, unless your neighbours are “internet warriors” as well. Hopefully not everyone feeds at the trough of tech.
YDI.
According to this comment, there is a rule in that community about downvoting:
- Don’t downvote because you disagree. Doing so repeatedly may result in a ban.
BTW, you should edit your post, all are bans of the !discuss@discuss.online community and are based in a community rule, not an instance rule. At least, I got the impression reading your post that it was an instance policy instead of a community one.
I’m not the OOP, I just crossposted it.
But IDK, you can clearly see in the screenshot that they’re community bans and OOP’s comment doesn’t really say or imply one way or the other.
Rule 4 of that comm is:
Don’t downvote because you disagree. Doing so repeatedly may result in a ban
All the bans are from people just downvoting this post (but people who downvoted + commented didn’t get banned). Call the rule stupid or whatever, but this seems like honest enforcement of an established rule so I’d hardly call it PTB behaviour.
This issue just keeps getting more and more entangled - someone called to defederate from an entire instance based on actions regarding a single, tiny community (on a fairly small instance to boot), now it seems that I should go read that article in order to fully understand what’s going on… so I’m drawing a line here and saying that even without bothering to read that article, the wording of this OP (in YPTB I mean) is poorly framed.
Communities should have the right to protect themselves from not merely random downvotes but serial, bot-like brigades. Especially for something called “Thoughtful Discussion” where they are aiming for more limited participation by more thoughtful people, and all the more so when they make a special rule just for that. PieFed has superior methods to handle this - like the ability to restrict downvotes selectively to only community members (I think? I am not a mod there but I remember seeing that mentioned somewhere) - but using Lemmy software there really are no other options provided besides banning people who don’t bother to read the community rules. I agree the solution is not ideal but what else does Lemmy offer to meet the same need?
This OP could be a YDI, or it could be CLM, or even BPR, but without being an admin or doing my own intricate research on lemvotes (which is the burden of OP to have provided) I simply do not have the information necessary to decide. (Therefore it’s probably YDI, even if the mod’s rejection reason could have been more clearly articulated on their end.)
…That post is blatant misinformation. If you aren’t allowed to downvote misinformation, then what ARE you allowed to downvote?
I think you’re supposed to thoughtfully discuss what’s wrong with it. That’s not a “downvote and move along” sort of community
If you come across a niche community it’s best not to interact with it, if you don’t like their content, block them.
Sure, it’s a bad article that relies on iffy reasoning, but it manages to dress that up enough that I can see why someone might be duped by it. And it hardly seems fair to be this vitriolic about someone being misinformed and enforcing their comm rules when no actually points out what’s wrong with what’s been posted or links to actual numbers, rather than guesstimations of the article author.
So why is the admin punishing people for not being duped by it? If you’re told it’s misinformation, and you go out of your way to defend it, then you’re not duped. You’re part of the misinformation. And an admin using admin powers to support that misinformation is just propoganda.
How is just downvoting something telling someone a post is misinformation? People downvote stuff over the most random crap here. Also, they didn’t use admin powers, no site bans were handed out only 3 month comm bans.
Unless you sort by new, a downvote lowers visibility of a post, thus preventing people from being exposed to misinformation. It also frames the article as something most people disapprove of, making it less likely people will believe the article uncritically. Separately, there were comments telling the admin the article was inaccurate, and the admin defended the post.
Please stop going out of your way to defend misinformation.
I definitely would be less ready to accept a post with -15 points at face value, and the post does have comments that point out (some of the) problems with the article. It’s rather questionable whether it’s worth it to dogpile the post with negative comments, versus just downvoting and moving on.
I mod !uk_politics and I’ve seen good articles go negative just because people don’t find the headline agreeable.
It’s rather questionable whether it’s worth it to dogpile the post with negative comments, versus just downvoting and moving on.
One, downvoting something can be a form of dogpiling and two, the mods clearly want disagreement to be voiced in the comments not through downvotes. This is laid in rules so I don’t think this constitutes power tripping behaviour.
I have three news come and see the same thing. Most people don’t even read the articles.
I’d prefer disagreement go to the comments, too. I do adjust what I post based on how people engage with it, including downvotes. A rule about mandatory engagement to vote for some communities would be pretty cool, but difficult to implement without some software mechanism.
If downvoting a bad-faith article is against the rules, they should ban me too!
Like, I’m sure as fuck not going to read every instance/community’s rules to see if I can push the downvote button on bad information.
Is it “vote manipulation” to click a post’s downvote button once? I think it’s disingenuous to frame it like this in the modlog.
I’d argue that the no-downvotes-rule itself is a form of vote manipulation.The reason is bullshit, for sure. They should have pointed to the comm rule instead.
