Mods are a bit too trigger happy on the libs sometimes. Many are just uninformed and don't necessarily have bad intentions. This person getting banned seemed uneccessary. Having a discussion with these people would be more beneficial as long as they don't resort to using slurs.
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
47 points (94.3% liked)
World News
32285 readers
562 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Calling all Black people monkeys isn't ok, but calling all Chinese person slaves is?
Who isn't a slave of their government these days? Western country have wagies slaving their life away while the government prints money to make housing unaffordable.
The word slave in this context refers to him thinking that only Chinese people are economically extorted. Not because of their ethnicity but because of their government structure.
Informing a person is a lot more helpful than just flat out banning them.
Anyone thinking bourgeoisie extortion is fundamentally different from that of feudal lords need to reexamine the process of appropriation of surplus value.
The first claim is just straight plain old racism, while the second reeks of confused lib. Either way, calling someone a slave in this context is almost certainly meant as an insult to the political organisation of the state and not to its people. This distinction is important with respect to moderation.
I consider the proletariat of capitalist societies to be slaves by definition. Thus if I were convinced that the PRC was capitalist, I could stand behind this sentiment.
I love justifying racism too don't worry
How was I racist? Seems to me that your retort targets some untrue idea in your head about who I am rather than what I actually wrote.
I also do not understand why you made this post if you do not actually make an attempt at trying to understand the replies in return.
One of not many properly moderated communities on lemmy.ml.
It is somewhat opaque how sometimes the rules apply and sometimes they don't, like news sources on rule 1, and iirc rule 3 in general. Deleting content should have the mod informing the user and the rest community what happened and have a way for the users to manage mistakes, be it either accidental rule breaks by the user or wrongful modding.
This is a good point and we'll take it under consideration. Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to make a judgement call, but if there are any particular cases you'd like to discuss please mention them here.
Sometimes those judgement calls have allowed moderation that is at the very least poorly defined in the rules. I posted one comment complaining about a local protest about the current Palestine-Israel conflict that trashed my university's library and shuttered it for the next few months. I got a delete-ban over that for a "CHUD Opinion", which is very much not in the rules. And that is far from the first time that I've run into unwritten rules that feel like they're putting a thumb on the scales.
Sources like The Guardian, Reuters, Telegraph, CNN, BBC are sometimes allowed and sometimes removed on rule 1.
The latter case is usually evident while lurking and finding a deep long comment thread. Sometimes one user there has deleted messages and there's another's rule 3 content comments left. Apparently these cases seem to usually be mutual rule 3 but it looks like they're treated differently.
I do think we don't have a clear policy on opinion pieces and that's absolutely something we should work towards. Right now it's more of a case-by-case basis.
If you could point to some specific examples that would be great!
I'll try to see if I catch examples happening
There's too many boring US/China news stories. Just because an article talks about the US or China (superpowers) does not make it interesting on its own.
Personally I prefer the FT, WSJ, Foreign affairs articles where the ruling class admits things that other outlet don't e.g. where the "spy balloon" had "surveillance capabilities" i.e. weather surveillance capabilities
This community's mods are rather nice imo
They don't argue in the comments and ban people for disagreeing - they serve much more as a moderator than as a user with moderator powers, if that makes sense. Better than some other communities (lemmy.world) for that reason alone.
Don't need to agree with their moderation stance to appreciate them respecting the ideals of separation of concerns. Moderators should not be able to argue so strongly in comments and ban other users because the mod got pissy and lost an argument.
The mods there argue with you and when they cant go on with arguments the ban hammer speaks
That's what happens on lemmy.world lmao
I can't remember the last time a mod got into an argument on this community - must have been months ago. I remember there being a few teething pains, but those have clearly been resolved.
Edit: I'm not saying I agree with their liberal use of the banhammer (I think it prevents people from seeing the errors in their opinions because being banned creates an antagonistic environment and likely solidifies their positions), but just look at the comment history of mods on this community: they're remarkably quiet.
This community needs to deal with all the defederated instances. A lot of the time, people from instances that have defederated with each other cannot see each other's messages on this community despite lemmy.ml being federated with all of them. It's rather absurd.
Seems pretty civil and highbrow to me, other than the occasional incursion from certain large instances.
Keep it up
A lot of people here are USA propaganda zombies. We should use sarcasm to drive them away