I did some analysis of the modlog and found this:
Ok, bigger instances ban more often. Not surprising, because they have more communities and more users and more trouble. But hang on, dbzer0 isn’t a very big instance. What happens if we do a ratio of bans vs number of users?
Ok, so lemmy.ml, dbzer0 and pawb are issue an outsized amount of bans for the number of users they have… But surely the number of communities the instance hosts is going to mean they have to ban more? Bans are used to moderate communities, not just to shield their user-base from the outside. Let’s look at the number of bans per community hosted:
Seems like dbzer0 really loves to ban. Even more than the marxists and the furries! What is it about dbzer0 that makes them such prolific banners?
Raw-ish numbers and calculations are in this spreadsheet if anyone wants to make their own charts.
Hi Rimu,
I see you’ve banned one of the communities I moderate !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com, deleting it entirely from your instance and denying access to members who had subscribed from there.
Two questions if you don’t mind. Why are you so ban happy? Was there something wrong with the community or was this based on your personal feelings of a particular user?
Please see https://piefed.social/c/piefed_help/p/2025442/europe-lemmy-dbzer0-com-banned-from-piefed
Holy mother of God that modlog. It’s almost up to 80 pages in 12 months 🤯
That being said, people who downvote AI content can be quite overwhelming on this platform. Our community !imageai@sh.itjust.works was very vibrant in the early days but seems to have been slowly crushed by the neverending stream of downvotes. It’s pretty discouraging when you go through the effort of creating and posting something and it gets randomly downvoted by anonymous accounts that seem to have been created just for the purpose of downvoting. But that’s just kinda how it is I guess, I’m not sure if anything can be done about it.
All things GenAI deserve to be downvoted. That’s why you might find it downvoted.
I’m ambivalent about it. I’m no fan of AI, but on the other hand people were having fun in that community and it seemed pretty harmless to me. I think when it comes to AI, it’s probably more reasonable to go after the companies who are spending billions developing it, rather than the common people who are just using it because it’s there and it’s free.
Nothing about genAI is harmless. Copyright theft, environmental disasters, hardware inflation, AI psychosis, general dumbing down of society, and causing the next Great Depression are harmful, for starters. Using it because “it’s there and it’s free” does not abdicate them from responsibility for promoting an incredibly harmful technology.
I don’t believe in free will so I can’t really hold average people responsible in such a basic way.
Ultimately, trying to solve the problem by going after the end result just isn’t going to work. Even if you want to blame the end users personally, you’re not going to solve anything without going after the source of the problem, which is the development of the technology in the first place, along with the availability and lack of regulation.
You could make similar arguments about using computers or social media in general tbh. The crux of the problem isn’t that people are using the tools that are made available to them, it’s that tools are being made available without properly considering the long term negative consequences, and only with a view towards short term profits.
LOL what!? Please elaborate because this sounds like a fundamental, much deeper problem than what we’re discussing.
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. I’m not “going after the end result”, I’m just holding the responsible parties responsible.
Development would end tomorrow if people stopped using it.
Uhhh no, I don’t think so. You could make similar arguments regarding computers in the context of consumerism and lack of ability or willingness to repair or demand repairability, yes.
Not in general. All the major platforms, I can and do make a very similar argument.
Incorrect, it is both.
I think you’re making an easy mistake to make. You see an account with no comments and assume it was created by some shadow organisation just to downvote things. But what you need to understand is, 99% of users on any social media are lurkers. 90% of people just browse. 9% of people browse and vote. 0.9% of people browse, vote, and comment. And 0.1% of people actually make regular posts. So 9/10 people who downvote your posts, just organically, are people who never comment. Because that’s how social media works.
Rimu’s Piefed moderation tools can help somewhat. Rimu put in an “attitude” score that shows how often a user up/downvotes. But even that can mess up. When I told one friend about piefed’s attitude feature, She said “But I only vote when a post is actually breaking the rules. So I can be punished for voting? Okay, then I just won’t even vote on piefed”. That’s the truth about this stuff: There are billions of people out there using social media in a way you will never be able to relate to. Because everyone is different.
yeah that’s exactly why i don’t think the attitude score helps
Nah, I’m aware of how many lurkers there are. I’m not assuming that the accounts were created by some shadow organization or something.
But from the perspective of people who are actually getting downvoted, it just feels bad.
I get it. But in cases like that, I think it’d be fair to argue that people are using social media in a counterproductive manner. Like for those who only downvote and never upvote, I question that behavior. All of those posts and comments that you enjoy don’t just come out of nowhere, people are actually putting time and effort to create them. And the only reward they get is upvotes.
Furthermore, upvoting is the way that you push quality content to the top, so that other users will notice the better content instead of missing it. It’s a critical part of what makes the whole community work. So if you systematically ignore the upvote button, you’re not being a responsible user of social media, you’re more of a leech that contributes very little and takes the contributions of others for granted.
And I don’t blame people like that at all, because traditional sites like reddit are so oversaturated with content, much of which is made by bots as well. So in that context, upvoting doesn’t matter nearly as much. So I think people simply don’t understand that even as a lurker, your upvotes and downvotes have consequences. It may seem insignificant for one person, but on the scale of thousands of lurkers, in the context of a relatively small userbase like we have here, it becomes clear that they are playing an active role in shaping the direction of the platform as well, despite not saying a single word. I only came to understand this after spending time on Lemmy, so I don’t expect people to just instinctively understand it. Which is why it’s important to educate them.
So, yes you banned a community moderated by multiple users because you personally felt slighted at being banned by one person.
Thanks for the explanation.
You were literally using the community as an attack vector against users
I was not. Another mod banned Rimu. Rimu could have just as easily banned that single user instead of deleting entire communities.
I’m looking at the modlog right now and there’s about 30 bans coming from one mod on that community, that all say “s”. That’s the reason for those 30 bans, “s”. The letter S. That one person handed out 30 bans for the letter S.
https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=ModBanFromCommunity&modId=14007283
Its like some admins have zero concept of consensus or community-based decision making. They just wanna play server daddy, and daddy always knows best. 😂
without further explanation, looking at the mod’s modlog posted above makes me inclined to go ask PTB…
I opened this thread last week: https://lazysoci.al/post/46564840
Based on the modlog, the mod hasn’t revised their judgement
I spent 8 years in organisations that operated with consensus-based decision making. IRL, not larping online.
You don’t know me. Even a little bit.
And yet you don’t see an issue with the way this was handled?
I don’t need to know you, I just observe what actions you take. You went off half cocked in this post like it was some sort of gotcha.
Also not sure why you suddenly have it in for our instance recently. It seems like you’ve thrown in your hat with Kaplan who is seemingly determined to get rid of the last remaining leftist instances. That’s extremely disappointing.
Being labelled as a Zionist is probably the reason.
When this was discussed last week with db0, db0 said to just move on as people tend to call everyone a lot of things on the Internet.
On the other hand, it could also be expected than instance admins take actions against this type of disinformation. Dbzer0 staff prefers not too for ideological reasons, but that’s the core of the disagreement: should instance admins allow mods to spread disinformation in modlogs?
If Rimu wants us to reverse a misguided community ban by a community mod I’d be happy to do so. But he hasn’t even asked afaik. We are actually quite reasonable people, despite claims to the contrary.
I don’t have any particular beef with Rimu except for the current hostility towards our admin team. And hit jobs like this post are not helpful.
Rimu is also on mwog and happy to listen to goat and pugjeasus there.
They never will.
Always has, we don’t support liberal capitalism. That’s worse than the fascists they hang out with, while claiming they fight fascism.
Your actions are louder than your words. Your continued bad faith and constant siding with other bad faith actors are bigger than your empty platitudes and statements.
Your personality is reflected in your actions. You’re a digital dictator.
That’s completely false and borderline harassment.
Calling in someone’s documented actions and bad oath isn’t harassment, it’s the truth.
Supporting doctored screenshots and spreading lies is harassment, that’s why Rimu has done in the last month.
Stop sucking up.
Ok so you know about consensus-based decisionmaking but refuse to implement it. You understand that’s worse right?
They don’t understand anything that wasn’t hard coded into their mind like PieFed.
That’s incorrect, there were several discussions with the community on the Piefed Matrix regarding those settings, which is why they became opt out by default and optional.
It shouldn’t exist in the first place.
That’s why you made the choice to code in your biases into PieFed without reaching a consensus with anyone first.
You must love how the top communities on .social are all meme communities.
That’s incorrect, there were several discussions with the community on the Piefed Matrix regarding those settings, which is why they became opt out by default and optional.
Not all of them are.
I’ve seen dbzer0’s democracy in action, and it left a lot to be desired. The users only hear one side speak before they vote, they don’t hear any counterargument until after they’ve made their decision.