Disclaimer: Fuck the rich and please consider reading 1 paragraph before you go to comments to explain how I am a bootlicker. Thank you ٩(•͈ ꇴ •͈)و ̑̑❀

For context, I generally report all calls to violence, no matter who the “victim” is, whether they are a public figure or an anonymous user. I didn’t even register that the person I was “defending” was rich—I’m just aware that calls to violence are against most instances’ terms of service (due to legal threats). Genuinely sorry seahorse! I wish you just had something in your instance sidebar or even spoke to me instead of jumping to ban and “lib” insults!

Unverifiable information you will have to take my word for (per community rules)

Apologized to seahorse and got:

My own personal curiosities only adjacently related

Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t this a bit of an abuse of federation? This is the same admin that pulled the move with the doxxing of Nick Fuentes. By banning users for reporting content that may violate our local instance rules, seahorse is making our local instances harder to moderate for our admins. (Honestly I respect the commitment to the running a very open and uncensored instance, but until Lemmy has the option to only report to local admins versus local & federated authorities, this may not be the best strategy?)

Anyway, this is pretty interesting. I’m honestly not too pressed about this (mostly I will miss [email protected]) and curious what yall think. :)

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    0·
    12 days ago

    Usually if numerous frivolous reports were getting on someone’s nerves they would warn you first. I’m guessing there was a big backlog to clear around certain comments. Thanks for making reports, even if I wouldn’t completely agree with the threshold you use, personally.

    “Libbity lib lib…” is a non-reason for a community ban, the admin in question would be better off being honest and just ban you from the instance with the reason “i’m tired of getting your stupid reports”, and be done with it.

    It’s fine for an admin to run things the way they want, but handling it in this unclear way reflects poorly on them, and the silly reason just shows how much someone can be stuck up their own ass.

    • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
      1·
      12 days ago

      The “honest reason” is that the moderator in question disagrees with OP.

      The moderator believes that the wealthy should be punished corporally for the catastrophic harm they have inflicted upon humanity for generations through their parasitism and believes that it is morally right to champion such punishment.

      OP has demonstrated the position that calling for this punishment is morally wrong.

      This was an impasse.

      The moderator decided that opinions such as OP’s are not welcome there, and therefore chose to remove OP.

      We’re not going to find detached impassive professionalism or even-handedness here, no matter how hard we dig for it. It’s just politically motivated suppression of opposed opinions through and through.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        1·
        12 days ago

        I get that and I agree that that could be the admin’s intent. Admins can have opinions and operate their server based on them. What reflects poorly on this admin is how they handle it immaturely in a hexbearish fashion, when the same opinion can be expressed a lot more clearly.