Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.dbzer0.com

12 replies

lemmy.world

While an important subject, don't they have the rule that only news articles can be posted?

They even referred to another community for posts like this. That's not censorship.

26
auraithxreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Forcing posts into a much smaller community with a tiny fraction of the reach severely limits visibility and engagement. That is censorship in effect. The community already has the option to downvote or challenge posts they find unfit, so removing them entirely is unnecessary. The rule is arbitrary and I guess meant to stop subjective discussions, but my post contained dozens of references to primary news sources. It was not an opinion piece or shower thought, or meant as a ‘discussion’, it was a well-sourced timeline with overwhelming evidence that the current leader of the most powerful country in the world is egregious pedophile.

So I can only assume the mod is either a thick af jobsworth or a pedophile

-22
.Donutsreply
lemmy.world

Then appeal?

Calling the mod a pedo is such a dumb conclusion though. Get a grip.

18
auraithxreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

They're not rare obviously, and I didn't; jobsworth was my first option.

an official who upholds petty rules even at the expense of humanity or common sense.

-7
.Donutsreply
lemmy.world

So if I posted to this community with climate change petitions, you wouldn't remove it as that would be upholding petty rules at the expense of humanity?

7

I wouldn't even bother arguing with this person. They lost me at calling Jordan a pedophile, even if he is completely insufferable at times.

4

How is that related to censorship?

It’s be more like if you tried to post it to the main climate related sub. Although petitions are generally pretty useless. So still a bad comparison.

-6

You reached the end

Thank god we have moderators to protect us. | Spyke