Apparently, so long as someone isn’t openly anti-AI, it’s ok to use bigoted language towards them. This is, sadly, pretty standard fare for the typical liberal, who is perfectly happy to descend into homophobia or transphobia if it means they can use it to mock their their political opponents.

I can assure you that neither Mia nor anyone else thought Rimu would respond to a simple wording change to promote inclusivity as some sort of insult.

Seriously, that’s your takeaway? That Mia provoked the ban by asking politely for a simple wording change? It’s ptb all the way. I’ve never met a developer more hostile to the opinions of his own user base.

“It’s the liberals who are the real leftists”, lmao

But “some control over modlog visibility” is inevitably going to be abused to protect problematic mods and admins. A right of reply, or a context field added to the modlog record would be a better approach, where subsequent actions can be listed and clarified. It’s also kind of amazing he just went ahead with these changes without broad consultation with piefed users or admins, or with the wider fediverse, since it effectively break normal federation.

If we go down to the core of the issue, there’s a fundamental disagreement between some instances on a niche use case: can the modlog be used for permanent slander, without giving people the option to reply?

To be fair, that is more a function of the modlog technical design in Lemmy, where ban reasons cannot be changed after the fact and federated out. It is not technically possible to provide a “right of reply” or to remove the comment from the modlog in either piefed or lemmy.

What we did do is talk to the folks who banned Rimu and MrKaplan, asked them not to do it again, and reversed the bans. And the admin who was involved also stepped down from his admin role. That’s about as much as could be reasonably expected to happen, given the technical limitations. And afaik Rimu never asked to be unbanned, that was simply an act of good faith on our part.

And despite all the effort we put in to smooth things over, Rimu has consistently refused to engage in good faith with any of our admins over this, instead spreading intentional falsehoods and drama-farming over multiple posts.

These recent changes to PieFed were simply a blatant extension of his kneejerk response to the whole situation. Instead of building useful functionality like a right of reply such as we have in fediseer, his approach is just to shadow ban our instance and break proper federation of mod logs for all PieFed instances.

These actions are not designed to protect users, they are designed to protect the fragile-egos of power tripping admins who will seemingly go to any lengths to censor criticism of their actions, whether those criticisms are legitimate or not. It’s childish behavior, and demonstrates Rimu has little commitment to the wider fediverse and the principles of transparency under which it operates.

That screenshot is gold.

The problem wasn’t simply that disagreement existed. It was that certain forms of engagement were repeedly hostile or dismissive toward vegan comrades, derailing discussions into repetitive antagonism and normalizing rhetoric that made parts of the community feel unwelcome or exhausted. This happened within the vegan community and on posts regarding veganism in other comms.

Yes, that’s exactly right. And that’s why I supported the proposal. But I think db0 is right, we probably need to rethink the proposal and resubmit it after taking all the community feedback on board.

Even though the vote is passing due to the way the voting works, I think that’s mostly because the admin team are being supportive of our vegan comrades who are having a hard time on lemmy. The community sentiment is actually very low, so I think in this sort of scenario, it’s pretty clear we have more thinking to do on the topic and need to come up with something the community can get behind.

Good point, lol.

I really like this idea! We could even have posts only unlocked on a set date and time, so that all the debate is closely moderated as it is actually occurring, maybe?

I have removed anti-vaxxer crap before but that issue doesn’t come up that often in reports, nowadays.

[email protected]

Suck to be you then.

Hi there, could you please provide me with a link to the comment, or to the modlog entry, so I can check it out?

Edit: you might want to send it via DM.

I don’t think I realized that at the time either.

Context:

Both things can be true :)

I managed to find it, it was a yptb post you had deleted 11 months ago and was also for a different account, which I guess it why it didn’t show up. I had forgotten all about it, sorry.

I just checked with the admin in question. Apparently this 3 day ban is for posting an image of a skinned dog on a bbq in a vegan community. - db0

I removed it because of the skinned dog image which really upset me at the time. Because, I really love dogs. But on reflection, I can understand it was just a (shocking) way to illustrate the double standards of carnists who routinely post the carcasses of other dead animals.

I also mistakenly removed your post from a non-dbzer0 vegan community, because I hadn’t paid attention to the reported instance.

It was a learning moment for me and I regret that I didn’t engage with your post differently. All I can say in apology is that if I could do it over, i would have left you in peace.

Sincerely, Unruffled.