this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
244 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3067 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Free speech hero Elon Musk is yet again silencing his perceived opponents. This time, he is doing J.D. Vance’s dirty work.

Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein on Thursday reported on the leaked 271-page dossier on Vance, allegedly from the Trump campaign’s research team, which mainstream media outlets had refused to publish. Just hours later, Klippenstein was banned from X, where he’d shared a link to his reporting and to the dossier

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago (11 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

I want you to be right, but I’m not so sure anymore.

For example, yesterday I was having a good discussion over on ~~[email protected]~~ [email protected] about how terrible the media bias fact checker bot is, and when we started talking about the fact that it feels like there must be some kind of sponsorship deal involved, the mods removed the post. They cited a rule that the discussion absolutely didn’t break. So, it appears we’re free to talk about anything we want on Lemmy, unless a particular mod starts to feel sad or offended, or wants to hide something from the rest of us, and then they behave like anyone else with power and act unilaterally regardless of the ideals of the platform.

Oh, and it says a lot about how mods feel about an otherwise benign issue, when they remove all discussion of it. A sponsorship deal was only a guess, no one knew if that was true for sure, but when the mods deleted the discussion it made me convinced we were onto something. So, that kind of backfired.

To anyone who saw that yesterday, it made me furious. I almost quit Lemmy entirely. If we can’t be critical of mod decisions without fear of all our content being deleted by said mods, then this place is not worth my time. I’m going to stick around to see if things improve, but I’m frankly not optimistic.

Edit: I initially said the discussion was on [email protected], but it was actually on [email protected], and the mods have since restored the post.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That is ridiculous. If the mods have an opinion about what you're saying, they should reply, not remove the comment like cowards.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

100%

They need to get a backbone and engage with the community, not police it when it suits their interests.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I understand your position, but I have to say that I appreciate communities that are at least a bit curated.

Seeing the same three guys having a go at each other about the same barely on topic thing in every post is such a let down.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can you link to that conversation? I'm not seeing in your history or on their mod log.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It looks like the mods just restored the post! I guess a little shame goes a long way...

Link to the modlog

Edit: fixed link

2nd edit: I initially said the convo was on [email protected], but it was actually on [email protected], my bad. That's probably why you couldn't find it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

that’s entirely on brand for lemmy.ml in my opinion. hopefully that kind of behavior is less prevalent in other instances, but it’s still incredibly annoying that it happens anywhere.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Your first mistake was discussing on .ml.

Ml is a shithole. But the flexibility and true freedom of the Fediverse is you are free to not use instances with shitty tankie admins and mods. You can move your account and community subscriptions over to any other instance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lemmy and the fediverse is not about free speech and democratizing a platform, it is about eliminating central authority.

Lemmy.world can enforce whatever stupid rules they want on their instance and their communities. But none of that stops you from running your own instance and a community on your instance where you can enforce your rules.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

That's technically all well and good, but I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect everyone who happens to dislike some mod decisions to spin up their own instance. Not all of us could reliably do that without help, nor should we have to. But I do think it's reasonable for us to expect mods of large communities to follow their own rules, and moderate in good faith, regardless of the instance they're on. These platforms need regular participating users like me who can trust mods across the fediverse.

I recently moved from lemmy.world to lemm.ee because I'm frustrated by what I see on lemmy.world, and I like lemm.ee's general vibe and philosophy more. So that kind of instance move, and speaking out whenever I see shit that feels wrong, is the most I can do as a regular user.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Reminder: Click "source" to see [removed by mod].

load more comments (5 replies)