ImplyingImplications

You realize you would be the mod if you start a community, right?

It's what we in the biz would refer to as a "grower", which is in contrast to a "shower".

You can create your own community on lemmy.blahaj.zone! There's nothing preventing you from doing that. Lemmy is designed specifically for this scenario. If you do create one, I'd subscribe to it! It doesn't matter to me where the content is coming from as long as it's content I like. I'll subscribe to a dozen versions of 196. Nothing changes for me.

Instance admins have total control over the communities on their instance. The admin can appoint themselves or anyone else as a moderator and unlock the community, so there's a chance there will be more posts. If not, that's fine too! I'm subscribed to a fair amount of communities that are no longer active. It doesn't change anything as I scroll through my subscription feed!

The reason the mods are leaving is due to an issue where the instance admin would remove comments from this community for breaking the instance rule of Empathy which has the guideline of:

If your comment is designed to hurt someone, this isn’t the space for it.

How is "fuck off" anything but a comment designed to hurt someone?

I see you're getting a lot of criticism so I felt the need to say I support the decision.

The idea behind Lemmy is that users can be a part of any instance they want and not be a part of any instance they don't. The same communities can exist on multiple instances and users can subscribe to all of them, some of them, or none of them. Mods are users too so I see no shame in instance hopping. As a user of Lemmy.ca, literally nothing changes for me besides the words after the "@"

To emphasize how little things changed for me, I was actually already subscribed to this community before the announcement was made. I will continue to stay subscribed to the other community on lemmy.blahaj.zone as well. Nothing has changed for me and my subscribed feed.

How does this comment not violate instance rules?

I'm not entirely familiar with the controversy, but from your link it appears that the Lemmy.world admin team announced a moderation policy that didn't go over too well and now they're reconsidering.

When someone runs a Lemmy instance, they are the administrators of the instance and have full control over everything that happens on it. By default, users can create accounts and communities on the instance. The user that creates a community is the moderator of that community and can control what gets posted within it. There's an overlap of authority between the instance admin and the community mod, as they both have the ability to decide what content gets posted, and sometimes that creates issues.

The issue here seems to be that the Lemmy.world admin team doesn't want community mods "creating narratives" by removing posts they do not agree with. In their rescinded announcement, they give an example that if a user makes a post in a community about how the Earth is flat, the community mod shouldn't be allowed to remove it. Instead, the community must respond to the post with debate or downvotes. Mods who remove these posts, instead of allowing debate, would be in violation of the instance admin policy and would be stripped of their moderation powers by the admins. The moderator of [email protected] (and some other community mods) blocked new posts to their community as a protest to the admin decision (which is now on hold).

Hey Google, what does "populace" mean?

What's weird is that people looking to adopt need to pass all kinds of bars before they're allowed. It's like we all recognize that not everyone is qualified to raise children but we stop short of preventing unqualified people from having children naturally.

SLAMS!

What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.

And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?

German courts aren't special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that's the same everywhere, but it's not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it's specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.

It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can't be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.