If you don't want EVERYONE to participate in your community, then you should really make it private.
I just got permanently banned from a community for making a single harmless remark on a single post that was right there in the main feed. It's not a community I'm super active in so it's not like devastating, but it is annoying
If your precious little community is full of so many delicate sensitive people who can't even be reminded that another viewpoint even exists, then you should really protect them by defederating and having everyone join your private website
The mod has literally removed like 75% of the comments and banned everyone lol
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have time to read every rule for every community that pops up when I'm in view all
204
Comments202
I defended @[email protected] when a comment of theirs was reported.
I was just given context on this. Looking at their comments in that light, I have decided to ban them from ![email protected] for all their bad faith arguments. Banning people for "bad faith" voting is bullshit. Coming here to defend that horrible action will not be tolerated.
Thank you and good riddance to @[email protected], when you look at the amount of subs she is modding, it's quite worrying. It makes me wonder if she does anything else with her time.
We all know it's the vegan community. I got banned for simply voting on comments.
Now they're also spamming posts to fill up everyone's feeds.
Same here lmfao, the utter sensitivity.
Edit: Also, it's mostly that one power-mod spamming vitriolic posts. I just blocked them and my feed is a lot nicer. Dude's checking the database and just banning everyone who downvotes him.
Is that something regular moderators can do...?
Not that I particularly care, but I moderate three communities on here and none of the tools available to me show who downvoted what. Exposing that type of info with that type of granularity feels like a bad idea to me; the sort of thing that is just begging to invite some sort of abuse.
Gotcha!
Yep, I mean you can see for yourself, I've never posted anything about veganism nor have I posted on the sub, and I was banned for "anti vegan sentiment" or something, I don't feel like looking back at their rules lol.
Their rules have the word "carnist" in them, so that should show you how seriously to take them.
It's a real word, even if it's a relative neologism, so I'm not sure why you have the scare quotes around it. In fact, the term has been in use for over t20 years, so, IDK man, maybe accept it. Implying that it's not a real word because you don't like it--versus because it's used as a slur to other people--kinda feels like Musk's complaints about cisgender.
Wasn't 'spastic' a mainstream word too, for a hundred years? (Popularity again somehow implies legitimacy here). And I'm sure we can find a number of really objectionable words from the warmer us states that were incredibly popular for decades and are, yet, offensive.
Likewise, we're allowed to dislike words like 'moist' and lazy prefixes like 'cis' while understanding they are still - for the moment - words.
This is a terrible tangent, though, and I'm okay if we stop this worthless digression.
Is spastic no longer an acceptable word? The only context I have for it is involuntary motion, from spasm. (Or the great Skinny Puppy song, Spasmolytic.)
You don't think it's awfully telling that it doesn't make any regular occurrence until that community picks it up?
I think that it's irrelevant to whether or not it's a real word. All words are made-up words. There wasn't any term for cis-gender that had any kind of popularity until about 20 years ago, simply because no one thought of the concept in that way; you were either normal/typical, or you were transsexual (transgender is the preferred term now, since people are also more likely to understand gender in terms of social construction rather than genitals or chromosomes).
Similarly, you can say that carnist is the opposite of vegan; a carnist is someone that is not vegan. A person that is cisgendered is not transgendered. A person that is heterosexual is not homosexual.
Do I find what vegans imply with the term to be insulting? Yes. But that doesn't make it any less real.
It was indeed! The post in question was particularly smarmy and my response was pretty tame in comparison. Why even have a community if you don't want anyone to have a conversation?
Vegans are a relative minority group that a lot of people like to antagonise. That's not to say you were doing that, I haven't looked at what you got banned over. Just that a lot of people do go out of their way to try to annoy vegans, and because there are relatively few vegans those people can quickly drown out any attempt to discuss, like, vegan recipes and such
Honestly most of the posts I see on /c/vegan or /c/veganmemes are just making fun of and antagonizing people who eat meat lmao
Wanna debunk that real quick. I live in Berlin, every major supermarket has a few sections completely dedicated to vegans. And I'm pretty sure they've also become a bit larger in general. Still the minority, but definitely significant by now.
That said, a very small minority is very vocal about it. A lot of people in my circles just live it, and they don't really care to proclaim it, that's the difference. And sure a lot of them want people to eat less meat, but no one is gonna get on your ass about it.
Doesn't really change the jist of what you're saying of course, just wanna make sure we're not dragging the whole movement into it.
Germany has an absolutely huge vegan and vegetarian population compared to other countries though, Berlin even more so. More rural areas of Germany are a very different story, but it’s still way more of the population than in most places.
Take this with a grain of salt, because it’s been more than a decade, but the only restaurant I could visit in the early 2010s in Heidelberg (!) as a vegetarian was an Indian restaurant. I’m in a different college town now and it’s like 20% vegan, but the age demographics are similar to Berlin.
It's tribalism. We're unfortunately all guilty of it in one way or another and it has become more serious with the increase of social media use
I like this explanation in particular: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202304/tribalism-in-the-age-of-social-media
Edit: to add, I am suspecting that I'm still getting brigaded by a group I pissed off last week. It really doesn't bother me if they are doing that, but there are people that take their internet points more serious than I do so there are definitely people in the fediverse that will do that to you
If it helps, votes on here do literally nothing outside of the post they’re in. If there’s a lot on one comment, it gets sorted to the bottom and maybe collapsed, but that’s it. If someone is going around downvoting you, they’re just wasting their own time.
Oh yeah I'm aware. I'm not worried about it. I wouldn't have even figured it out if a couple of people didn't try to taunt me.
That’s… sad.
That explains why I'm banned from there. I saw a post from there pop up on all that I actually agreed with and when I tried to comment I learned I was banned.
I missed this whole thing. I've had them blocked for as long as I can remember.
Block them can't you?
How about we try to keep everything less shitty?
I'm not vegan but I used to actually enjoy their posts. There were some interesting viewpoints and decent conversations before it turned into this weird little echo chamber lol
The cat food thing was a huge jumble, I suspect things will calm down again a bit later.
They'll just find something else to have a temper tantrum over.
Then that's a you problem then. You have a solution and are choosing not to use it.
No, it's a federation problem.
🤣 you're being a drama queen. Seriously just let it go and either block the community or stop bitching about it
I suppose the irony is lost on you.
Could have been lemmy.ml!
Nope.
I have a cousin on FB who's like that, spamming feeds with a lot of stuff promoting a diet that works around her particular allergies and needs and trying to proselytize it to anyone who appears to be listening. The volume was actually really high, and for stuff that isn't family stuff like I usually use that account to just see.
So, blocked. It's like her and a rabid anti-gov/vax/tax nutjob blocked, and I dunno whether that's right.
I got banned for downvoting. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they’re so sensitive to criticism that the equivalent of a thumbs down emoji gets you banned.
Pretty sure I just got banned from c/vegan because I downvoted "wrong". Haven't interacted in any other way, so not sure what else it could be. Also recently got banned from c/imageai for downvoting "too much"? This is a weird trend that seems like a bad path for Lemmy to go down if it's starting to become the norm.
*Also, what's up with not being able to block a community you're banned from? They don't want you there but you're forced to view their content? That makes no sense.
I see a lot of comments about a particular vegan community. Sounds like people here need something like c/chillVegans where you don’t get kicked out unless you’re a total menace.
The problem is that people love to needle vegans, so it would just end up as gore.
How about you kick out all of the actual assholes?
Feel free, based on this comment section, we’d all appreciate it.
I don’t personally want to sort through that gore, which is a pretty common attitude for vegans. I suspect that’s why there aren’t more general spaces for chill vegans.
If the vegans there can’t take a joke, they aren’t very chill. However, being intentionally offensive and rude shouldn’t be tolerated, even if it’s a chill place.
Pretend that it’s any other earnestly held belief. I wouldn’t expect a chill Catholic community to be down with cannibalism jokes, I’d just expect them not to engage in purity tests or call non-Christians heathens. I’d expect that a chill Hindu community would remove “Holy cow!” comments, but they probably wouldn’t remove people for admitting they eat chicken or ban non-Hindus.
I would expect a chill vegan community not to remove comments from people who eat meat or to call omnivores “bloodmouths,” but jokes like “how do you spot a vegan?” or “I’m going to eat twice as much meat tonight to make up for you” would probably still get removed. I get that the second one seems harsh, but it’s a system of ethics for vegans, so it isn’t a joking matter for them.
Plus, all four of those jokes are way, way overdone.
I'd like a setting that automatically hides communities where I can't participate. If I have to be a member of some club, hit some threshold of something, whatever; I just don't want to see it, then.
My guess is it's because there are a bunch of people who hate AI in general, and they want votes to instead reflect which images people like or don't like for what they are instead of every post having a negative score.
Yep. Banning users who aren't subscribed to a community and are just downvoting everything that comes up is pretty common and understandable.
The typical modlog entry I see for that is "block the community or curate your feed", and I think that's pretty justified. It's like intentionally showing up somewhere you don't want to be just to "booooo" everything there. Being asked to leave and not demoralize the people just trying to exist in their own space is perfectly fine, IMO.
Voting on content in the feed is helping to curate it for others. If a community gets more down votes than up votes, maybe the community is the one at odds with people
If you're browsing "Subscribed" sure. But don't browse "all" just to shit on things you have no interest in. Block the community and move on 🤷♂️
If downvoting for disagreement isn't okay, then why is it okay to upvote for agreement? (And why did you downvote me, if you think that's a bad thing?)
Voting is so users can express their opinion of what does or doesn't belong in the feed. People who can't handle mild criticism or disagreement shouldn't be posting things in public spaces
Personally, I agree with the vegan philosophy of reducing factory farming of meat. What I think is bad for society is villainizing anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the most extreme viewpoints. Which is explicitly the sort of posts I downvote
And also why I'm no longer allowed to downvote toxic vegan posts in Lemmy.ca
Wait, really? I'm gonna have to check on that. Curious if that's an API limitation or a frontend bug. What frontend did you use? Lemmy-UI?
I use lemmy-ui, yeah.
This is what I see for a banned community
vs
What I see normally
Thanks. I'll add that to my test cases for the UI I work with. I don't think I've ever tried to block a community the test user was banned from, so I'm curious if it's an API restriction or the way the UI handles it. Will prob also submit a bug once I figure out which.
Edit: That looks like the community options that have the "block community" button are all hidden when you're banned rather than the "block" functionality being restricted. I'm almost positive now that it's just a UI bug. Will still add it to my test cases, though.
I just checked and using the default Lemmy UI (on desktop) you totally can block communities you're banned from. I'm pretty sure what we're looking at must be some kind of UI/front end bug.
Thanks for the additional info. I'm gonna set up test cases in the UI I work with and try to confirm (and handle it better if need be). A UI bug was my assumption as well.
Yeah same. I don't downvote indescriminately, but a post had factory farmed fish : 0 not factory farmed. Like no shit. Whatever, that supermod was going off the deep end with their comments lately.
I have zero clue who/what you're talking about, and I feel I'm better off for that.
Is "agreement" a rule? That's too incongruous to believe -- only because loyalty requirements are a far right thing, not the rules for a group typically skewing left.
I never care about these posts unless you share what you posted.
Too Many times the "it was just a little joke bro" turns out they called someone's dog the N word or something and understand why they got banned.
"What it wasn't like I said it about a person, just a ***** dog"
So, have fun OP, but making this post makes me doubt you more than them if you're not going to recount any details at all.
Feel free to check the modlog.
Butthurt Beaver has also been banning anyone who dares vote incorrectly.
how
admins of other instances can see who voted, and what they voted. You can easily build a self-hosted copy so you're an admin, federate with Lemmy.world, and see who is voting on a post/comment.
Mods cannot see who votes on a post/comment, so this is the only way.
https://lemmy.world/modlog
Vegans will talk mad shit and then get so mad when their thread reaches nonvegan feeds.
Can't stand the heat, which is why they eat salad.
Rip roast veggies
Fuck I would give this comment Reddit gold if I could. You just made me snort soda.
Not to be all "not like the other girls" about veganism, but I kind of hate the general vegan communities. They always end up turning into a who can hate meat eaters the most contest and the less extreme members usually leave. It's also really frustrating because the goal should be to get more people eating plant based, and their methods just push people away. Yeah, of course I believe people should stop eating meat, and I struggle to understand how someone can acknowledge the cruelty of factory farming and turn around and eat a burger, but shouting them down isn't accomplishing anything. I'm not going to engage with the people who show up just to talk shit, but I'm down to talk to anyone actually open to a conversation.
That said, there are a lot of people who think it's suuuuper funny to seek out vegan communities to make the same tired ass comments that lead to vegans becoming angrier and more insular, so I really don't want to make this a Vegans Bad comment. I get the desire to tell people to fuck off. It's exhausting to try to talk about a news article and be constantly drowned out by trolls.
OP, I don't know what your comment said, but you know whether or not you were engaging in good faith. Maybe you deserved the ban, maybe not. I just think maybe sometimes we could all stand to keep scrolling.
Because cruelty is inherent to food production in most places in the west, to one degree or another. Even for non-factory farmed meat, there's going to be some cruelty at the very end of an animal's life, since event he most compassionate slaughter is still slaughter. But even going past that, to plant-based foods. in the US at least we rely on labor abuses in order to have groceries that are affordable. The migrants that pick oranges in Florida (or, picked; DeSantis is trying to eliminate undocumented immigrants, and the result is that farmers are having a very hard time finding labor) work in terrible conditions for horrible pay, conditions that no person protected by labor laws would ever accept. But we, as a society, are aware of this, and accept that this cruelty is necessary for us, because we won't--or can't--pay for produce that comes from co-op farms.
We--all of us--pick and choose where we put our energy.
You are now banned from c/vegan
THANK YOU ! I was feeling like I was alone with this point of view...
Was I voting on comments on bad faith?
Well let's not pretend people don't routinely use the downvote as a disagree button. And you'll notice I never said the mod in question was 100% right or wrong, just that I can see how people on both sides end up angry.
Disagreement isn't an invalid case for voting, despite what Reddit had people believing before.
The voting system is to let people know how many people thought this content was good or not good for the feed. If you shouldn't downvote for disagreement, then you shouldn't upvote for agreement either
But nobody has any problem with that
Why should that be the goal of the c/vegan community? Why can't it just be for vegans to vent, and exchange advice/news about vegan food?
This expectation that vegans need to always be positive and welcoming towards meat eaters barging into their vegan communities is exhausting and kind of ridiculous.
Oh I don't feel like I need to be welcoming to people who have no intention of listening and are just there to be dicks. I just don't want to push away anyone who might be open to the idea of changing their diet by immediately telling them what a terrible person they are for not doing it already. It's important to me not just to reduce the harm I do, but to try to minimize it elsewhere if I can.
It's a fairly common tactic of evangelical religious groups to send young people out to proselytize; they say that they're called to spread the religion to the whole world, and that the proselytizing is to save people by converting them. The tactics that the young people are taught are often antagonistic. An extreme example is the Westboro Baptist Church, but all evangelical religions use similar tactics. Unsurprisingly, very few people convert. The true purpose of antagonistic proselytizing is to reinforce in/out group status; the youth are rejected by outside people, while being praised by people within their own group. That reinforces their feelings of comfort and safety within their group, and makes it more difficult for them to leave. Leaving the safety of the group means that they're severing their most intimate social connections, and that cost is too high for most people.
This was my experience as a Mormon; this has been the experience of many Mormons, and of all people that have left high-demand evangelical religions.
IF they really cared about getting more people to join their religion, they would be opening and welcoming to people, even people that were antagonistic to them. When you think about it from a PR standpoint, it should be clear that acting antagonistically towards people that simply don't believe the same things--not people that are being antagonistic themselves--works counter to the purpose of persuasion.
I get what you're saying, but the idea that every vegan community must make it their goal to convert people, and act accordingly, is just wrong.
What if they just want to shitpost among themselves?
Then they can do so in the privacy of their own fora.
Edit: the butthurt brigade has arrived!
Don't federate if you don't want to federate.
Ahhhhh... feels just like Reddit! It's like we never left!
Perhaps that would be a better home for that community?
I can’t wait to see you guys on c/fedilore!
Seriously these mods ban you for literally nothing. I think they're worse on here than they ever were on Reddit. Bunch of fucking children I swear to God.
edit Oh hey now I'm banned from c/vegan too. I wasn't even talking about them. They're even worse I guess.
Wait, did you post there, or did you get banned there, for this post HERE?
I have no idea when I was banned from there. I assume it was this post, cuz I don't think I've ever posted there before. I just noticed when I tried to upvote a thread earlier it wouldn't let me so I assume this is where it came from.
Was it c/vegan because there is apparently a mod there who has gone off the deep end and is banning anyone who downvotes let alone comments. They are hermetically sealing the c/vegan echo bunker.
Oohh let’s try an experiment. I have never been to c/vegan even though my stepson and his wife are vegan so I guess I might have a reason to … sorta.
Anyway here goes. … Hey c/vegan, the one mod over there is a completely douchebag and should just stop being a right cunt. Please ban me until they fuck off.
How do you find out if your banned?
Go there and try to vote on something or comment on something, it will immediately tell you if you are banned
Picked a few random top posts and up/down voted a few. Nothing yet.
You're too late. The butthurt Beaver has been banned.
So, like, if I organize a block party where everyone's invited, and someone drops a deuce in the punch bowl, I shouldn't ask them to leave because I should have had a discrete guest list?
I'd say it's more like I went to a party where the host invited the entire block but only wants people there wearing funny hats, but didn't tell anyone they had to wear a funny hat and then called the police to complain that their house is full of people who aren't wearing funny hats.
I'd take the ban without question if I was acting like an ass on there, but all I did was make a comment that didn't specifically agree with them that everyone who isn't vegan is apparently a horrible person who persecutes vegans constantly lol
FYI, I don't know the specific case here, just being generic.
The rules are right there in the sidebar in pretty much all clients, though it varies on mobile depending on app/web UI. Most communities here have rules. Society has rules. Ignorance of those rules, whether accidental or willful, is never a valid excuse for breaking them. "I'm sorry, officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that" isn't a valid legal strategy.
To return to the analogy: it would be like showing up to the event without a funny hat despite the invitation clearly stating that a funny hat is required and then being asked to leave. It's on the attendee to read the details on the invitation and be aware of any requirements.
"Calling the police" would be more akin to escalating to a site admin to have you banned for that which, I agree, would be extreme unless the person decided to be an ass and make a scene on the way out (not throwing shade with that, just using an actual party example I've had to deal with).
Doesn't explain the 20 or so users banned in the past couple of hours for "rule 5" having never posted in the community.
Well put
Yeah, I don't really get it either.
You don't have to comment on everything you see. Seems more logical to focus on a few communities you know, and pay more attention when you browse All.
Even if you comment, it's okay to be banned. Move on. Why make a post to complain about it if you don't care?
I’ve never come across a friendly vegan community. I’m not exactly looking for one but the ones that make themselves known tend to have extreme takes. There’s nothing wrong being vegan but their online community sure feels they’re going about it the wrong way, being overly dismissive and defensive rather than open and helpful.
You are now banned from c/vegan
It can depend on how one interacts with the community as those who are open-minded are often welcomed and taught the ethical ways of doing things.
lol. “If you agree with us, you can stay.”
That's why we have the vegan community for vegans and open-minded meat eaters.
As long as the carnitas keep their dirty, meaty mouths shut, right?
People with speciesist tendencies are not allowed on the community however if they have an open mind sure!
So why have a community on a federated instance? Why ban people for passive participation?
People need to learn about the vegan subculture. Why should a community shut itself down because others cant handle different ideas.
Was it on the vegan community? I bet it was on the vegan community.
Their echo chambers are lined with the same material the tankies use in their communities.
Nah, a ton of people say the same thing.
They're wrong, and so are the immediate bans (the bans are asshole moves, but you don't just jump into a C/ without checking the vibe a little), but it's too common a complaint to call unpopular.
We're talking about u/beaver aren't we?
One of the things I disliked about Reddit was the self righteous power mods that turned the site in to an echo chamber.
If you can't handle a counter point that's been made in good faith, then get off of the soapbox.
Meat eaters engage in the 300+ logical fallacies more often than enough in my experiences.
Shame on you
Just leave the rabid vegans alone. They are showing you who they are. Believe them and don’t waste your time trying to be rational with them.
Some people get the tiniest shred of a hint of a... concept of a plan... of power and it turns them into tiny tinpot tyrants. Sometimes they're on HOAs, sometimes they're middle management, and sometimes they moderate communities or forums online. You can't reason with them, and it's out of your ability to destroy them, so you're better off just shrugging your shoulders, giving them the finger, and then doing something else.
You have been permanently banned from c/ConservativeCatRecipes.
I feel like the Internet doesn't have that fuzzy but between public and private spaces like real life does. Some people want their public space to be like a Marxist book store on a side street to a Main/High Street. Sure, people can come in to read the literature and talk about the books there. However, if someone comes in wanting to discuss the merits of Ayn Rand, they are probably going to be kicked out.
Looks like it's just a temp ban, not permanent:
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=1271184
I appreciate that, but I already blocked the mod and the community. There's no point in even trying to deal with someone like that for a community I'm not super active in. I honestly can't imagine that even vegan people will want to stay there much longer if it's gotten this bad
Isn't blocking them essentially you banning them from your posts and comments? Why is that different?
No. Blocking in Lemmy is simply a way to remove something from your sight; even if you block a user, the user can still interact with your posts/comments just fine.
Right, but my point is OP is criticising the community or its mods for not wanting to interact with everyone and then not wanting to interact with everyone themselves
I personally think blocking and banning is fine in sensible amounts. Sometimes someone is just making your experience worse and bringing nothing to the table for you. I'm interested to hear OP's thoughts on what looks a bit hypocritical to me
I am not sure but I think that OP's point is more like "they don't allow everyone to talk" than "they don't want to hear you". I'm saying this based on his usage of "participate" plus the focus on the mod side of the things.
If my interpretation is correct, there's no hypocrisy, even if I don't fully agree with it.
I full agree with you on this. Specially when it comes to blocking.
If OP didn't want to see the community, he really should have hosted his own instance and only federated with select few.
Or just block it the first time they see it
(I was being facetious)
IMO this is mainly only a problem because Lemmy is small enough that everyone is browsing all and there's no realistic natural separation of users. Going private is an extreme solution with high likelihood of it just dying as a result.
Okay, and...?
That doesn't negate the point: if they don't want anyone else that isn't already part of their group interacting with their instance or posts, why be federated, and why leave things public?
Because what they want is more likely to stop people with values incompatible with their group interacting with it, while still being visible enough that people who may have compatible values could become aware of it.
Maybe the way they go about pursuing that causes a mild annoyance for many other people, but I think it's a legitimate thing to want.
Sounds to me like they want all of the benefits of being in a society, while shouldering none of the costs. In that respect, they're perfect Libertarians.
As opposed to the people who think it's their God-given right to say whatever they want, wherever they want?
It sounds like you're describing every libertarian I've ever met
Do you think the "cost" of "being in a society" is accommodating the mainstream consensus view? I'm not vegan but I figure if they want to have an echo chamber that isn't all about reacting to my objections and the objections of most other non-vegans to their ideology, that's fine, it's not a "cost", I am not entitled to or being "paid" through such reactions, and I have zero tangible stake (pun intended) in their dietary choices. That abstraction doesn't work, it's not about paying your dues, rather it is an organizational question about how much Lemmy should function to homogenize opinions or to shield minority opinions from adversarial social proof.
While I personally value space for debate and disagreement, I also think spaces for minority views can't really exist if they are just going to be overwhelmed by volume, and they should be enabled to exist lest everyone devolve into regurgitating a reddit hivemind sort of mentality.
Isn't that kind of the point of the concept of free speech though? Like, sure, you're welcome to your belief that Jews have secret, giant space lasers that are starting wildfires in California (because I guess Jews hate liberal mecca...?), or Haitian refugees are eating pets in Springfield, OH, or even shit like Churchill was the real genocidal maniac that murdered 6M Jews, Romani, gay people, autistic people, and other "undesirables", but if you want to express your minority views in public, you have to expect pushback. If ideas are good, and you can convince people that they're good, then your ideas should eventually be either tolerated, or become mainstream.
But if you don't want to exist in the marketplace of ideas, then... Don't.
It sounds as if you're describing something like a low moderation politics focused imageboard. I would say you are getting it backwards; untrue racist conspiracy theories win out in such an environment, which mostly does not select for good ideas, because the "marketplace" isn't about which arguments are good or anything like that, it's about shaming and demoralizing those who disagree, appealing to people's emotions, and projecting an impression of community consensus through high volume shitposting. Despite that there may not be direct removal of comments, such an environment effectively selects against minority (at least within that space) viewpoints by making it extremely unpleasant for anyone trying to express them, and by making sure it will at least seem like there are a larger number of people mocking them.
Needless to say, there are some problems with this way of doing it, and it's worth considering ways to not be like that.
My brother in Satan, these are literally the ideas that the US was founded on. That's what the 1st amendment is all about. If irrational, batshit crazy conspiracies are winning in the marketplace of ideas, then it's because people that are sane are doing a terrible job of leading people, and helping them to discover truth on their own.
Well put
It isn't though. They---specifically one moderator that seems to have been summarily removed---don't want a separate space that's entirely their own, they want to exist within a greater community. They want to be able to provoke--yes, I use 'provoke' intentionally--people without those people being able to directly respond.
If they want their own space, they're free to set up a defederated instance, or create their own message board.
That isn't how libertarianism works.
Your confusing libertarianism for right wing populism calling itself libertarian. Actual libertarianism is all about voluntary association and contracts. Think anarchism but more structured and property laws.
Oh also, there's probably just as many sects of Christianity as there are libertarianism so we mostly hate each other just as much if not morebthab we hate all the other political parties.
Libertarians don't usually practice what they call Libertarianism, any more than most Christians practice anything that resembles Christianity. I'm aware of what Libertarianism supposedly is, but that's absolutely not the same thing as what Libertarians say and do.
Its more accurate to say vegans are like anarchists as the concept anarchism is popular in the community.
It's more accurate to say that you want to be publicly loud while wearing earplugs.
The situation is like this:
Beaver "I keep seeing Helldivers' posts in my feed maybe I should start commenting on them saying "I don't like Helldivers" because I dont play the game, I'm sure that will get me far in the community."
You know the situation is nothing like that. You're just being dishonest about your actions and disingenuous about your intentions.
Then perish.
This is a significant problem on Reddit as well.
There needed to be resources and admin actions devoted to keeping disagreeing groups separate for the respective health of their communities.
Even then, it is a common practice to outright ban people from some subs if they participated in other subs as participation in one sub likely meant they would be disruptive in the other sub.
And then we all get to live in echo chambers or get banned for ban evasion because we didnt know we were banned. I hate this.
Feel free to create !vegandebate and attract people there to discuss this topic
Discuss echo chambers and bans with vegans? I try to leave you guys alone and don't post but i do enjoy a lot of your shitposting so i'd rather not get banned.
I'm not even a vegan, just following this drama from afar.
If you enjoy the posts, then keep lurking, just don't downvote I guess
Upvoted as unpopular. I don't know if I agree with this or not (on general grounds), it's extremely complicated.
In theory it's completely OK to have a community for a restricted but non-private demographic, and often it's how you avoid a crowd of "excuuuuse me, I'm going to debate the same stale points over and over, and I expect you to waste your time with me".
In practice we know that there's a high chance that the community evolves into an echo chamber, of the dumbest type - that claps to convenient idiocy, but ridicules inconvenient truth.
If it's sensible to have a community like this, as well as the outcome of having it like this, depends mostly on the sanity of whoever is in charge of the comm.
[Edited for subtle rewording. No change on discourse.]
This is exactly what made subreddits turn into an indistinguishable mush once they start reaching the front page. A way to not have your community show up in All would be nice, or to make posts read-only unless you're subscribed.
Absolutely agreed. Unlike reddit, there's nothing between "private" and "everyone". Reddit had a feature that subs could avoid the front page no matter how popular a post got, but Lemmy doesn't have that, so every post shows up on everyone's all.
That would be nice
I don't think this opinion is really all that unpopular, but I get that this sub is often used to air grievances and somewhat popular opinions, so I won't judge too harshly.
Pretty impressive modlog rap sheet you got there OP! I had my last account for over a year and I don't think I got banned or had a comment removed once, so seeing an account with dozens of entries is eye opening to say the least. This account is new enough that I've managed to stay off the modlogs so far with it as far as I'm aware. Maybe I should go into a random sub and say something racist and/or toxic! Are there any dog specific communities where I can request dog meat recipes?
They are echo bunkers. They only want comments and identity validating upvotes that whole throatedly support the orthodoxy of the echo bunker but they want to spread their extremist message by commenting on and brigading posts that they don't like in other communities to try to bully, shame, and harass others into adopting their extremist quasi-religion and join their echo bunker.
You're gonna see that a lot on Lemmy unless you fall in line and don't say anything they wanna call a "dog whistle".
You'd have loved to s see the mod log for r/Artisanvideos. So many people thought it was the ideal place to plug their shit with high traffic and low post count. I was not polite about banning them. Especially stupid goddamn Gruyere cheese. I had to blacklist their YouTube channel.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I just got banned from that community and I've literally never posted in it. I've downvoted some posts, but they're all pretty antagonistic, so what else else am i gonna do when it shows up in my feed?
Block it?
I guess I could, but I don't feel the need to turn my feed into an echo chamber. I'm not going to go to the community to pick a fight, but I'm not going to hide from content I don't agree with. I'll just downvote it and move on. Besides, the OP is right; if the mods don't want their community to get downvoted, it's their responsibility to make their community private, not my responsibility to block their shitty content.
Private requires you to add everyone as a mod. I've only seen private communities used as single person kind of blogs, otherwise it's unsustainable to have 50-100 mods
Alright, well I didn't realize creating a private community was such a hassel, but I still don't see why I'm expected to hide from this community when they post antagonistic shit. If they want to insult people who eat meat, fine, but then you have to deal with the fact that the people you just insulted might downvote you. It's not my job to help them insulate their echo chamber.
Then you get banned, and then the matter is solved?
...or you don't start a public community on a public website if you don't want input from the public? Also, the other mods on /c/Vegan removed the Mod responsible for this ban wave, so it seems like they agree with me that downvotes aren't grounds for community bans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love the Lemmy vegan community - they are the second greatest shitposters around (fuckcars have the edge due to their expert ragebaiting).
Nah. Perhaps the third.
The greatest shitposters are the people talking about AI and large language models.
inb4 "to criticise them or to embrace them?" - yes.
I actually really wish we could flag communities or posts as "excluded from the main feed."
There have been several posts I've made or that my bot has made (from community specific RSS feeds) that get down votes seemingly from people completely outside of the community.
For instance, I had a post about a heavy Standard Notes discount ... pretty relevant to Standard Notes users; down voted like crazy in the early days of lemmy.world.
Similarly, the other day Bungie made several post about Destiny around the same time. The bot faithfully posted all of them, but several got down voted, almost definitely because someone who didn't care about Destiny down voted the "spam" since several posts were about Destiny around the same time in the "main feed" (and they were probably sorting by "New").
My retort/unpopular opinion: There's no recommendation algorithm, if it's not a community you're subscribed to, and you don't care about it ... what the heck are you doing engaging with it? Move on to the next post or block the community.
Alternatively, we should be able to block interactions from people who haven't subscribed to the community without limiting federation or making it moderator only.
When you down vote a post of a community you're not a part of you're actively hurting its surfacing in the feeds of people in that community that use feed algorithms other than "New" or "Controversial".
Agreed
At the moment, the only option is to ban them
I'm sorry to report that I've down voted you, as I think this is a popular opinion. But I 100% agree with you. If you don't want outside voices, don't allow outsiders in.
I moderated a left wing community at one point, so by your logic I should allow Liberals to flood the community until its no longer left wing? Im not saying Liberals aren't allowed but its stated clearly in the sidebar that they shouldn't talk over the intended audience (left wingers).
woke nazis along side the conservative ones.
same shit different pile and those in the middle are stuck.
If you need to be in control of community policies then go start one so that you can be in charge of it.
Otherwise have a nice day!
Let's assume (something that should not be done) that OP is indeed butthurt.
And then, what? The merit/demerit of what OP says is orthogonal to their emotional state.
If people do not want to engage with c/vegan in good faith or follow the rules then it’s best to move on.
Voting on content that is in the Lemmy feed is engaging in good faith. That's what the voting system is for.
What is not good faith is suppressing anyone who doesn't 100% agree with what your community is for
Shouldn't votes be about how good it fits the community, instead of how good it fits All? ...maybe those two types of votes should be counted separately, All votes for how high it should rank on All and subscriber votes for everywhere else.
Did you just ban me from the community because I downvoted one of your comments?
All I ever did in the community was downvote you and now I can’t post or vote there 😂
You're ignoring the rules for your own temper tantrums.
I’d love to know what my “Rule 5” violation was for
This has been reported. I may not agree with all they say, but I do agree on following the rules. This is why I don't engage with the vegan community.
I appreciate that approach however if the Lemmy World admins want to use heavy handed tactics on a misunderstood minority community protecting their users once again the whole fediverse will be watching and will have further documented evidence of admin misconduct. c/vegan believes in the protection of animal and human rights.
You're just really vocal about your diet, you're not a protected minority nor should you be lmao. Trying to equate yourself with being black, LGBT or having some other inherent, immutable property that leads to people getting murdered, raped, beaten, abused, fired, jailed, tortured, sold into slavery or many other things throughout the world, is kinda fucking offensive.
Veganism is a philosophy not a diet. Vegans are often discriminated against as our freedom of speech is often silenced and the community is often slandered. Many vegans were arrested for protesting and for recording what occurs inside factory farms.
https://animaljustice.ca/blog/ag-gag-laws-in-canada
You have no qualms about not following your own rules.
If you can't handle good faith arguments then you should get off of your soapbox.
Indeed. That community is not breaking any instance rule, why are people so obsessed with it
I have no obsession with the community. It just draws attention when people start getting bans for “rule violations” they didn’t commit.
Rules can be as strict as the mods want them to be as long as they do not break the instance rules
I agree.
If they want the rule to be “No downvoting Beaver” then they should make the rule “No downvoting Beaver” and stop banning people for Rule 5 violations they didn’t commit.
Because it’s obnoxious.
And while it may not break rules, it goes against the spirit of online forums and discussion to ban people and prevent discussion just because they respectfully disagree with you.
Also, Lemmy has an issue if a post can gain traction because mods just block anyone who downvotes, preventing them from voting on further posts.
This wave of banning is quite strong, let's be honest.
But I've seen trans communities banning people who "respectfully disagreed with them" while pushing anti-trans agenda.
This would also require upvotes from other people, which I don't think they are getting so far
Veganism in general goes against what the average person was taught when they were growing up. As people mistakenly believe that by going vegan they’re giving up delicious foods and a happy life.
Vote score on this comment really proving the point that this type of moderation is necessary. If you don't want a community in your feed block it, it is not everyone else's responsibility to cater to the hivemind.