11mo ago

Lemmy.world community banned people for misinformation on the post complaining about Lemmy.ml instance banning people for misinformation

Modlog visible here: https://lemmy.world/modlog/2

I have no stake in this argument (centralization on both lemmy.ml and lemmy.world is detrimental in my opinion), but I found it kind of ironic.

Not sure if this is the best place to post it, but didn't know of any "neutral" fediverse communities, so I guess this one works.

Edit: the thread itself: https://lemmy.world/post/16211417

Some examples of removals/bans: https://reddthat.com/post/20718767/11186767

Show Context

72 comments

I don't particularly care to debate world war II politics, but I think there is enough data there to have a discussion, rather than questioning somebody's character for even bringing it up. I don't actually care about community level moderation decisions, I only care about instance level bans.
Banning somebody from an instance for referring to historical events, seems questionable for a cornerstone Lemmy instance to do. And that is a valid discussion to have here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
In mid-March 1939, attempting to contain Hitler's expansionism, the Soviet Union, Britain and France started to trade a flurry of suggestions and counterplans on a potential political and military agreement.[\[45\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTECarley1993-48)[\[46\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWatson2000696%E2%80%938-49) Informal consultations started in April, but the main negotiations began only in May.[\[46\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWatson2000696%E2%80%938-49) Meanwhile, throughout early 1939, Germany had secretly hinted to Soviet diplomats that it could offer better terms for a political agreement than could Britain and France.[\[47\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTERoberts200630-50)[\[48\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-tent-51)[\[49\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-Grogin-52)

The Soviet Union, which feared Western powers and the possibility of "capitalist encirclements", had little hope either of preventing war and wanted nothing less than an ironclad military alliance with France and Britain[\[50\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTECarley1993324-53) to provide guaranteed support for a two-pronged attack on Germany.[\[51\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWatson2000695-54) Stalin's adherence to the collective security line was thus purely conditional.[\[52\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-55)
- I don’t particularly care to debate world war II politics,
  Yet here you are. Funny way of not particularly caring.
  but I think there is enough data there to have a discussion, rather than questioning somebody’s character for even bringing it up.
  Oh, cool, as long as it's Just Asking Questions(tm) it's okay. Next up, we'll do "Was Hitler REALLY a BAD guy?" and "Did the Holocaust REALLY kill millions of people?"
  Banning somebody from an instance for referring to historical events, seems questionable for a cornerstone Lemmy instance to do.
  "Referring to historical events"
  By calling the Soviet invasion of Poland 'bloodless' and accusing the Poles of being the REAL Nazis, who the Soviets had to invade to defeat fascism?
  Yeah, that's not 'referring to historical events', that's 'referring to pure fucking fantasy and passing it off as historical fact'.
  It's curious how many times I run into defenders of people like this who insist that they have no skin in the game but still bend over backwards to accommodate the most horrendous views. I must just not be enlightened enough to understand.
  
  Again I'm not going to debate world war II.
  The severe issue at hand is banning somebody from an instance, an instance which runs about 30% of all Lemmy traffic, because of a ad hominem attack against their character for having what looks to be a legitimate perhaps misguided discussion in a news community.
  
  Again I’m not going to debate world war II.
  But your entire point rests on the idea that these posters engaging in atrocity denial is 'just a disagreement' that should be tolerated. So pretty clearly you are debating WW2, otherwise you wouldn't be defending their right to "Just Ask Questions" about Soviet massacres of the Polish people.
  The severe issue at hand is banning somebody from an instance, an instance which runs about 30% of all Lemmy traffic, because of a ad hominem attack against their character for having what looks to be a legitimate perhaps misguided discussion in a news community.
  Jesus fucking Christ. Correctly identifying and banning someone for spreading misinformation is 'a ad hominem attack', and genocide denial is just 'legitimate perhaps misguided discussion'.
  What a fucking world.
  
  By your logic should we ban all the Zionists in Lemmy.world denying all the dead Palestinians and calling them Hamas. Because there's a lot. The point is, these things become extremely subjective.
  EDIT: Just saw that some people said the invasion of Poland was bloodless. Those kinds of comments do sound like straight up misinformation, though, so it's not all subjective lol.
  
  By your logic should we ban all the Zionists in Lemmy.world denying all the dead Palestinians and calling them Hamas.
  I wouldn't object.
  
  Mr. Jesus,
  Removing somebody from a community, is fine and the prerogative of the community moderators. Removing somebody from lemmyworld at the instance, has a massive chilling effect on the entire lemmeverse. These are things that should have different scope, and different magnitude requirements.
  If you think somebody was being disingenuous in your community, removing them from the community fine I support you, I don't agree with you, but the fact that you can do that is a legitimate moderation tool available to you. And I think that's correct.
  Removing that person from all communities, for what looks like genuine level engagement, I think is a bridge too far, and harms all of Lemmy.
  
  First, the person was only given a community ban, and not even a permanent ban.
  Second, people absolutely should feel that spreading genocide denialism isn't kosher on any legitimate instance. If it was an instance ban, I'd be in support of it, in the same way I would support someone playing debatelord games about the fucking Holocaust should get the boot. It doesn't matter even if they do 'genuinely' believe in their genocide denialism, it is not and should not be welcome in any civilized space.
  
  First, the person was only given a community ban, and not even a permanent ban.
  Okay, from my reading I thought it was an instance ban. Then I have no issue at all here. Carry on

72 comments