this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
591 points (94.6% liked)
People Twitter
9578 readers
2276 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ignores the don't X here sign then gets mad when they aren't allowed to X
"It's so unfair!" ... as if the identical thing is not being done to literally everyone else all the time. Toddler logic.
A nuance that people often miss about lemmy.ml's authoritarian policies - whereby they ban people from communities they've never even seen before - is not that it is done, but that when it is it cites a hidden set of rules that are nowhere ever written down. Little kid logic, where the rules mean whatever they feel like in that moment, and if you don't like it then feel free to try to stop them.
Some people here are pushing for fascist Reddit 2.0, others for free-speech Voat, but most of us just want to get along somewhere in the middle without too much bother:-P.
My recollection is that Voat took a turn into being fascist Reddit 2.0 pretty quickly itself.
Turns out when you build a platform around anti-censorship you wind up with a small number of free speech enthusiasts and a large number of people who will be banned from any site with rules against hate speech.
Then when you have a site where 80% of the content is racism the 20% non racists leave.
Voat was so fucking toxic. Radioactive hate swamp.
Took about two seconds.
You mean these hidden rules at the top of the front page?
Yes, you got me: by "hidden rules" I obviously meant the very highly visible, non-hidden ones, placed where nobody can miss them at the top of the page.
The rules only matter if the admins adhere to them and enforces them consistently.
Those hidden rules, shown openly and have working links. So hidden. I heard McDonald's hides the Big Mac from the public too.
The issue with a "no politics" rule though is that everything is political. It ends up just being the mods removing what they want to remove and letting what they want to see stay.
Okay and if the users of that community are happy with that and you are free to stay away, where is the problem exactly?
The issue is that users generally don't get a say. Even in the fediverse, moderators aren't chosen democratically. Yeah, you can start your own community and try to build it up, but inertia is not in your favor.
Anyway, my point is that a "no politics" rule is not really reasonable. You can have one, and you can enforce it however you want. It will always just end up causing issues though. For example: look up Nazi degenerate art. It's just art, right? However, to them it was political, and it was political in a way they didn't like, so they removed it from society.
No moderator is perfect. Even if you trust them, blurry rules probably aren't the best. There's better ways to define the intent than "no politics" that create clear borders of what's allowed and what isn't. Blurry rules are usually best for those who want to abuse it.
I am excited to see how your lemmy instance works out. When will it go online?
I just saw this post on "All". I'm not part of this community and I don't care to open an alternative for it. I'm just point out how blurry rules are open for abuse. Just because you agree with the person running things today doesn't mean someone in the future won't use it to remove something you want to stay. I don't understand how people don't get this yet.
Yes that is because they don't carry any of the responsibilities of running the server. Why would they be allowed to decide?
I didn't say they should. Your comment implied that they did (or at least implies participation is consent). I just pointed out that they, in fact, do not. There is no value judgement in that statement.