Because someone, eventually, is going to make this post anyway, we might as well get it over with. I know someone posted something a week ago, but I feel something a little more neutral would be useful.
There's a lot of talk on lemmy.world right now about lemmy.ml at an instance level (edit: see here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20400058). A lot of it is very similar to the discussions we've had here before- accusations of ideologically-based censorship, promotion of authoritarian left propaganda, 'tankie-ism', etc. The subject of the admin's, and Lemmy dev's, political beliefs is back up as a discussion point. The word defederation is getting thrown around, and some of our beloved sh.it.heads are part of the conversation.
What do people think about lemmy.ml? Is there evidence that the instance is managed in such a way that it creates problems for Lemmy users, and/or users of sh.itjust.works specifically? Are they problems that extend to the entire instance or primary user base, or are the examples referenced generally limited to specific communities/moderators/users? Are people here, in short, interested in putting federation to lemmy.ml to a vote?
To our admin team and moderators: What are your experiences with lemmy.ml? Have you run into any specific problems with their userbase, or challenges related to our being federated with them?
Full disclosure: I have very little personal stake in this. I don't really engage with posts about international events, I don't share my political beliefs (such as they are) online beyond "Don't be a shitbag, help your fellow human out when you can", and have not run into any of the concerns brought up personally. But I'm also not the kind of user who would butt against this stuff often in the first place.
What I will say is that I have not personally witnessed activites like brigading or promotion of really nasty shit from lemmy.ml. I cannot say this about other instances we defederated from before. But again, this may just be a product of how I use Lemmy, and does not account for the experiences of others.
This is just an opportunity for those who do have strong opinions on this topic to say their piece and, more importantly, share their evidence.
If nothing else, given similar conversations a year ago, this will be an interesting account of what sh.itjust.works looks like today (happy belated cake day everybody!)
I am not from this instance. But Iโm very happy to have you on the federation we need more people willing to be open and honest about their experiences. Thank you ๐
Edit: Added an additional choice - block whole instance at user level - to 'option' list. If you, nahuse, or anyone else have ideas for options f through zz, feel free to say so!
Thanks for joining the discussion, nahuse! I appreciate the specifics you've provided.
As an aside, you and a few others raise an interesting point re: archiving of deleted comments, particularly when there's evidence of those comments getting removed from the modlog intentionally (I'm not claiming that this is objectively true - I don't know, but it is one of the common claims in the broader discussion here and on similar posts). Seems like a worthwhile project for someone with the interest, skills, and time to develop. But anyway.
Your experience does echo that of other politically engaged sh.it.heads* in this thread. I would ask - given the choice between
a) blocking lemmy.ml communities with evidence of ideologically motivated moderation (either on a case by case basis, or as part of a community-sourced blocklist - something I mentioned here before but do not know can be implemented), and using alternatives for 'controversial' topics;
b) blocking lemmy.ml at the instance level, as a user;
c) joining an instance which is not federated with lemmy.ml;
d) having sh.itjust.works defederate from lemmy.ml as a whole; or
e) keeping things as they currently are, in terms of your engagement and 'positioning' [eg. Instance of choice, community engagement, etc.] - retaining the ability to try and engage on lemmy.ml communities with the same risk of ban/blanket ban, and talk about it there while enfranchised and elsewhere in the Threadiverse during ban periods.
which makes the most sense to you/would be preferable?
The dynamics of Lemmy instances are kind of interesting, as each can have very different approaches to moderation. An instance admin may simply have a policy of "Please just don't post anything that's going to make CSIS or the RCMP knock on my door" (Canada bias here), and individual community moderators either a) apply an even hand with that edict in mind, or b) apply and enforce more restrictive policies. Others may have a more consistent throughline based in interests, political beliefs, and so on - which seems to be the case for lemmy.ml and is why we see these blanket community bans over innocuous comments.
I'd like to touch on that 'innocuous' point - what I've personally seen results in bans/deletion looks like fairly bog standard internet political discourse (alongside legitimately not cool stuff, but that's not in scope at the moment to tease out). You present a point, you get a counterpoint, things get a little heated - with the difference that the person with the heated 'not our flavour of far-left discourse' comment has a much higher risk of getting ban hammered.
I don't think this is ok - but at the same time, this is a moderation choice of a specific group using a specifically allocated set of resources. Alternative communities exist, and can be used, that may not have this problem (though someone will always find something to complain about re: moderation practices, tale as old as the internet)
There is, of course, the stickier point of lemmy.ml being not necessarily the main instance (see imaqtpie's post, makes some good points), but the Lemmy dev's instance. I don't think the problems people have with lemmy.ml (usually in global events and political discussion communities - unfortunately resulting in blanket bans from unrelated communities on the instance in some cases) extend to the tool/protocol itself [see: exploding-heads, all of the more distasteful instances that exist], but this may be a concern for some [see Socsa's comments here]. It may raise concerns/doubts about Lemmy as a whole. It sucks - I love this thing - but it shouldn't be unacknowledged.
*If you haven't seen this term before, it's what I like to call users of this instance (much to the chagrin of some :) ). Think Deadheads - enthusiasts of sh.itjust.works. A little cheeky, but ultimately good natured and fun - which kind of sums up my feelings about this place. We love sh.it.heads - not to be confused with shitheads.
I too have been somewhat of an agitator in this. In my defense, data getting removed from the modlogs sounds indefensable to me - as in, incompatible with the principles of the Fediverse where we are supposed to "trust" the instances that are federated together?
In Dessalines' defense, that may very well have been real yet merely a bug in testing the newer features of v0.19.4? Only an instance admin would be able to dig deeper into that, and even that requires some bit of coding or data wrangling skill to either constantly monitor the differences in the modlog before vs. after the alleged edits, or as was suggested to have happened, be caught purely by chance (as one person claimed).
I am not volunteering to spin up an instance to test though, so I will drop this matter and give lemmyl.ml the benefit of the doubt on it. i.e., Lemmy.ml having been in the process of upgrading to 0.19.4-rc.6 wasn't widely known at the time, but now that we know that, bugs may be more expected than not during such a process?
Even so it does not change how hearing about (or observing first-hand?) such heavy-handed moderation practices as nahuse described will drive people away from the Fediverse, thereby lowering overall content for us all. Saying that it is their instance to do with as they please is like saying that it is fine for porn to appear on porn websites - which it very much is! (or should be, imho) - but my goodness, please label it so that people do not walk into it unawares!?!?! Similarly I am not... entirely happy that hexbear.net has a community dedicated to dunking on people (Chapotraphouse; maybe it is therapy for them?), but now that I know that, let them feel free to be however they want, but oh my, please WARN someone before letting them just walk into that hailstorm of comments!!! (which continued for WEEKS after I made some comment about President Biden doing better than I expected in some small matter, long after I stopped responding but my consent to continuing the conversation no longer seemed to matter to them; and then the next week I similarly walked into a lemmygrad.ml post and had the same thing happen)
The very concept of Federation makes that significantly more complicated b/c "we" choose to show that content in "our" spaces, so it is both theirs, and after it comes over, ours too. Fortunately, the site.content_warning in v0.19.4 will allow such warnings to be delivered, though I am not certain how it is implemented (it says prior to showing images or viewing a community, but what about a post from a community? e.g. [email protected] has a great deal of content that can be... off-putting to people). Note that it says that the warning will only be delivered the first time a user triggers it - though again the details remain to be seen, e.g. will a cookie remember that past a session for the same login?
So I personally would like to see an option "f" added that would use the new site.content_warning ability as/if it rolls out with v0.19.4. Though I have no say in this as a non-member of sh.itjust.works, so I say this only to explain my thoughts in case they were of interest. The tricky part about that might be how to implement it: the temptation would be to do so only in the more "controversial" communities, and yet the admins of lemmy.ml are doing blanket bans among many communities, e.g. [email protected], despite people never having commented in them before. So they seem to think that the entire instance is one big community in that respect - or else how can that be justified? - hence the warning should be to anywhere across all of the instance, not just each community, should it not? (and again, whether that is even possible, or if it would have to be applied to each individual community plus all future ones created, remains to be seen)
I don't mean to instigate an argument, but I think this comment illustrates pretty well why .ml might actually be justified in judicious use of the ban hammer. If people are coming in specifically motivated by an ideological disagreement, then maybe they're well within their right (ethically I mean, they're within their right just on the basis of owning the instance as it is)
But the person you replied to wasn't talking about ideological disagreements - they were talking about factual disagreements.
As in, the .ml mods seem to deny facts.
Yes I'm sure OP was having a very rational conversation about widely accepted and not at all contested facts that are not at all important to any ideological perspective.
The Tiananmen square massacre is not a contested fact. It's just a fact.
Yes, a famously uncontested fact
And I am sure that fact was brought up completely organically and not specifically because op knew it was a source of ideological tension
Truth isn't an ideology though. You keep trying to draw a false equivalence between the two. Truth is just truth. Ignoring the truth is simply acting in bad faith, and that's something any ideology can do for any truths. If a group is denying that truth then they are trying to spread misinformation.
I'm not making a statement about the truthfulness of the specific claims being raised, i'm just pointing out that the topic is very famously contentious, and going to that space specifically to raise it knowing full well it is not a welcome one is itself bad-faith trolling and deserving of removal and possibly a ban, depending on how hostile you're being.
It isn't your space where you can decide what topics are fair game, and frankly whining about it here isn't going to change anything about their moderation policies.
Seems to me you're just skirting around the fact that there's a group that specifically against the truth.
Not only that, but now you're saying a group has the right to pretend that a fact is not a fact, and they did he allowed to have a space where they can push lies without repercussions.
But even ignoring all that, moderation where you get banned and censored from communities unrelated to the where you post a fact is just acting in bad faith. It's no longer moderation as you state, it's actual censorship.
I'm not skirting around anything, I'm just pointing to the problem. If someone walked into a LGBTQ forum and started harassing users about male and famale biology phenotypes, they'd be within their right to ban that person. It doesn't matter if what they were saying was factually correct or not if the reason they're there is to harass them along an ideological fault-line, especially if they're instigating that topic themselves to begin with.
It's their space, they're allowed to keep certain charged topics out of it, even if you disagree with them or if you feel like they're trying to censor what you consider to be factually accurate. You can talk about that topic anywhere else you want, they can't censor you in your own space.
Honestly I think they're not being strict enough, if it were me i'd be taking notes on everyone here affirming their intention to push this topic in my space and just preemptively ban them.
Username checks out
PS: it's not considered factually accurate. It is.
"I don't have any defense for my behavior, LOL nice username"
PS: idk what fact you're specifically talking about, nor do I think it's particularly relevant to the question
You don't get 2 things.
you already admitted you don't care for the truth. Therefore, it's not possible to have a civil discussion with you, because you're someone that doesn't accept facts, because you'll always invent some fantasy that's convenient to you for the argument.
People like you are indeed allowed to live in your censored fantasy instance. But there's no rain other instances need to tolerate your fantasy world, let alone allow members into instances that do fairly moderate, accept the truth, and don't try to force their fantasy unto others (which is inherently what happens when one side accepts reality and the other denies it + censors reality).
Therefore, there's no point in continuing this discussion, "comrade".
You're free to block me if you find my criticisms objectionable.