• PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    68·
    5 months ago

    Holy fuck, looking down through, how the hell do you not find these removals reasonable? “Poland forgave the Nazis for genocide, but not the Russians for a bloodless invasion”? A bloodless invasion?! “Poland were the REAL Nazis, the Soviets had to invade them”!? “You’re just a racist Nazi Pole”!? What the ever-loving fuck.

    • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      13·
      5 months ago

      For the sake of this discussion, I went back to the 800 comments thread and found the actual exchange on that topic.

      It starts here: https://lemmy.world/comment/10475023

      Tl:dr: Polish commenter is upset at banned user for

      • categorizing the impact of the Poland invasion by USSR as “bloodless”
      • denying that USSR and Germany were allies
      • pointing out that there were Nazis in Poland

      On the other hand, banned users is upset at the Polish commenter for

      Before WW2, Poland was pretty antisemitic. In the 1930s, for instance, youth nationalist movements had advocated for “ghetto benches”, so Jews couldn’t sit with Poles in university classrooms, following growing violence against Jewish university students. Which given the rising tide of antisemitism in Europe, wasn’t exactly shocking, but antisemitism did certainly exist in Polish society. It’s certainly different than American university antisemitism of the era, which was limited to quotas (which were sometimes only subtly enforced)–Poland didn’t have university quotas at all for several years after WW1, but they returned.

      During the war, a great deal of the Holocaust was perpetrated and assisted by local collaborators. However, this was much more common in other countries, like Ukraine and Lithuania, than in Poland.

      And after the war, there were incidents of antisemitic violence among Poles. The most famous is the Kielce Pogrom. These effectively ensured that survivors would not return, barring any chance at a revival of Jewish life in Eastern Europe post-war.

      On this subject, I would highly recommend Antony Polonsky’s My Brother’s Keeper: Recent Polish Debates on the Holocaust, which is a discussion of essays/articles/etc which were written in the 80s when a flurry of debates/discussions on this subject in Poland occurred.

      Reading the whole thread again, there doesn’t seem to be much “harassment” as stated in the modlog, as much as a heated debate between the two parties.

      From a lemmy.ml user perspective (which I’m not), I could see why they would complain about a political bias against the USSR.

      One potential improvement point might be for mods to add historical sources to why they consider a comment misinformation. Also, banning this type of users and removing those comments (and leaving the others) might lead to an echo chamber effect on lemmy.world (mirroring the one on lemmy.ml).

  • Nothing4You@programming.devEnglish
    40·
    5 months ago

    it should be noted that these bans are community bans, not instance bans. your title makes it look like people are getting instance banned from lemmy.world, while the examples you’ve shown are about community bans.

    if i’m not mistaken, several/most of the lemmy.ml bans/ban complaints have been about instance bans, which affect all communities on the instance.

  • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.alEnglish
    36·
    5 months ago

    Sorry mate, I’m with @PugJesus@lemmy.world on this. There’s no benefit in platforming misinformation.

    • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      9·
      5 months ago

      It’s fine!

      I really see where they come from, and why they prefer a strong moderation on this kind of topics. I guess it starts to get blurry once you have to define what is misinformation. Historical accuracy is hard to achieve (this is why I still go to /r/AskHistorians, and I linked a few threads in the other comments).

      I saw some time ago a graph showing how the perception of the USSR changed a lot in Europe during the Cold War compared to just after WW2.

      The following statements might be all true at the same time

      • USSR committed imperialist massacres
      • USA committed imperialist massacres
      • most of the Western European nations committed imperialist massacres

      Sometimes I’m wondering if those three statements can be compiled in a single comment and not instantly start a comment war with everyone trying to push their own agenda, and mods having to interfere following their own views.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        12·
        5 months ago

        "Mao and Stalin did nothing wrong and if they did, the undesirables deserved it.

        The West is a disgusting generacy oppressing the working people"

        Banged out a tankie from while enjoying his soy latte in Brooklyn coffee shop. Dreaming to escaping to the socialist Paradise and leaving the shit hole behind.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.eeEnglish
          6·
          5 months ago

          Banged out a tankieKremlin shill from while enjoying his soy latte borscht in Brooklyn coffee shop St Petersburg.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
        7·
        5 months ago

        Worth thinking about what all these have in common, no? (Hint: they are all nation states).

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          4·
          5 months ago

          Nahh fuck you… My nation state is better and strong! It will kick your nation state’s ass!

          My nation state never did nothing mate!!!

  • Blackout@kbin.run
    28·
    5 months ago

    If you spread lies like USSR never working with the Nazis then I don’t care if you are banned from planet earth. It’s a heinous lie that tries to ignore undisputed facts. The Soviets were brutal killers that only joined the allies cause their partner in crime turned on them. All those bans were reasonable. Blocking .ml is the right choice.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    5 months ago

    Anyone characterizing the Soviet invasion of Poland as “bloodless” deserves to have their bullshit posts nuked

  • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
    20·
    5 months ago

    And you point is? Should they not ban people for spreading blatant lies?

    • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      16·
      5 months ago

      One example of comment removal that caught my eye:

      They can’t engage with any topics or offer counter arguments. Every response is: Calling people fascists, insulting and using ad hominems is lemmy.world’s thing. The comment section to this is mind-blowing, really. All the things of which users of lemmy.world are accusing other instances, is exactly what your instance is doing. And you don’t even see the hypocrisy…

      Reason: Misinformation

      ban difference of thoughts, opinions, and beliefs That’s exactly what lemmy.world is doing.

      Reason: Misinformation

      Not being able to criticize an instance on that instance seems counterproductive to me. You are convincing people that they are right claiming you apply censorship as they are being censored.

      One ban example that caught my eye:

      The whole “USSR allied with the Nazis” thing is actually Nazi propaganda and historical evidence proves this repeatedly. Before the war started, Stalin offered to send 1 million soldiers preemptively to England and France, together with artillery and aviation, if they agreed to a mutual defense agreement against Nazis. The soviet union wasn’t prepared industrially for a war like that, again as proven by the 20+ million deaths in the war, and wanted to postpone it as much as possible, and join the allies as soon as it started, but France and England were too eager to see communism destroyed and didn’t care about mutual defense, especially England. The fact that the Soviet Union later invaded some countries to the east of Germany was in preparation for war, to prevent Nazism from rising in these places and the military there allying with Hitler, as Finland did for example (there were plenty of Finns sieging Leningrad). Equating Nazism and the USSR is a revisionist, fascist talking point based on purposeful misinterpretation of some data like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and outright omission of other data such as the attempted Collective Security policy attempted by the USSR since the early 30s to protect Europe from fascism, that England and France conveniently didn’t agree to since nazis and fascists were enemies of communism as they were.

      Reason: Misinformation / Harassment

      That user was later banned.

      This comment has a source (The Telegraph, might not be the best, but still). Seems more interesting to keep the comment, show them why they are wrong, so that people reading the whole conversation can see which side is more reasonable, than removing the comment and banning the user altogether.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        28·
        5 months ago

        “We should platform misinformation so we can present both sides”

        Fucking what.

        Apologia for the USSR’s cooperation with the literal fucking Nazis is next level, and that’s the example that jumps out for you?

        • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
          8·
          5 months ago

          Disclaimer: I am by no mean expert on the matter.

          Some threads I found on the matter on the regretted /r/AskHistorians

          My point was that posting those kind of links in reply to comments that are suspected to be propaganda could counter their argumentation without having to silence them.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            20·
            5 months ago

            My point was that posting those kind of links in reply to comments that are suspected to be propaganda could counter their argumentation without having to silence them.

            Platforming lies is platforming lies. “But someone further down in the thread refuted it!” doesn’t really matter when the entire fucking point of this kind of misinformation is “Repeat a lie loud enough and often enough and people will believe it’s true”. It’s no more worthy of staying on to show ‘both sides’ than contrasting vaccination with fucking anti-vaxxers.

            • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
              2·
              5 months ago

              I see.

              On the other side, banning people is encouraging them to create their own echo chambers (lemmy.ml being obviously one from the recent instance bans). I guess different communities will have different stance on moderation strategies, which is the way the Fediverse is supposed to operate.

              • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
                1·
                5 months ago

                People need to be free to be how they like. e.g., if a mod is forced to have to read constant Russian (or Chinese, or Israeli, or American, or UK or whatever) propaganda with horribly offensive active disinformation, then likely they will quit being mods. I’m not saying they are holding their efforts hostage to their preferences - but I’m not not saying that either (it is factually accurate if unnecessarily adversarially phrased), just saying that it’s the normal default of the world and we would do better to bow to natural principles than to wish and hope that things were not that way.

                It is really, REALLY hard to find common middle ground - and sometimes it cannot be done. Echo chambers are a natural result of how people with opposing viewpoints choose not to tolerate one another.

                Intolerance is uniquely important, bc being intolerant to intolerance is not the same as generalized intolerance!!! In fact, the opposite is true: anyplace that is even somewhat vaguely neutral towards intolerant behaviors, in general, will quickly become intolerant overall. Imagine a room with screaming toddlers - those who scream loudest get noticed, and the behavior spirals forward feeding off of the other behaviors to become more pronounced, not less so. A space quiet enough to be heard is not normal. Entropy must be fought against if order is desired. There is a balance somewhere between letting toddlers do nothing at all fun, vs. letting them do whatever crosses their minds at any given moment, thus inflicting their tendencies upon others nearby.

                Take Chapotraphouse for instance: I would not dream in a million years of trying to shut that place down. Maybe I should? But I don’t. That said, neither do I want to go there, and the Fediverse would be a much more welcoming place overall if it would warn people about what goes on inside of it. If they are willing to be fair-minded, they could even contribute towards writing up the content text of such a warning? They should not be solely in charge of that endeavor, ideally, yet neither do I see any legitimate reason to lock them out of such a process?

                I don’t know how the Fediverse expects to survive when we mix together the equivalent of 4chan and Wikipedia, but don’t label any of it, and then try to get people to come and enjoy their time here. Especially with it being so confusing - e.g. was a comment removed by a community mod or an instance admin? (fortunately v0.19.4 looks to entirely solve that latter one, yay dev efforts on that one - they really do so much for us all, for free!:-D)

                Note I am not advocating for a common middle ground here - I do not believe such exists (e.g. if someone wants to make fun of me, but I don’t want that, why would we presume a “middle ground solution” should be the default?). I am rather advocating for labeling things what they are. Imagine going to a website to watch videos, but some videos are porn and your friends are all prudes, or moreover let’s even imagine some are nonconsensual pedophilia - will you send them there? Sending people to Chapotraphouse, or a place that federates with it - crucially: without labeling it - is like that.

                Some places on the Fediverse are like porn - they are (/ may be?) fine to exist, but are considered offensive enough to need to be labeled, if we want to reach out to a more common audience (of e.g. non-Arch-Linux users:-). And then yeah, label Lemmy.World as likely to remove content that goes against Western standards? (Except you picked bad examples imho, being community mods rather than instance admins) And do similarly for Lemmy.ml as well - again, hopefully with their own participation in writing up that label?

          • higgsboson@dubvee.orgEnglish
            12·
            5 months ago

            No. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

            Asking mods to debunk it if they want to remove it is absurd. It takes more effort to debunk something than the effort it takes to spread lies, so your “neutral” suggestions are basically saying you want tankie propaganda to take over. Bots would just keep posting more and more propaganda and the mods would fall further and further behind.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
        15·
        5 months ago

        The first two are sweeping generalizations that are like that simply not true and only serve to attack the work of the moderators. If you want to critizise something you need concrete examples.

        The last one… the historical accuracy is debatable, but was it even posted on a thread that discussed pre-ww2 history? Usually such cut&paste comments are made to derail justified complaints regarding ML propaganda about recent events.

        • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
          9·
          5 months ago

          The first two are sweeping generalizations that are like that simply not true and only serve to attack the work of the moderators. If you want to critizise something you need concrete examples.

          Ironically, the moderators created those examples themselves by removing those comments.

          The last one… the historical accuracy is debatable, but was it even posted on a thread that discussed pre-ww2 history?

          It was not, but as you know, the lemmy.ml moderation discussion always brings up political questions.

          Usually such cut&paste comments are made to derail justified complaints regarding ML propaganda about recent events.

          Indeed. The fact that lemmy.ml bans people about mentioning Tienanmen is still crazy. But that should probably not be a justification for lemmy.world moderators to remove any debatable historical thesis and ban users for that, especially on a community dedicated to the fediverse.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            5 months ago

            But that should probably not be a justification for lemmy.world moderators to remove any debatable historical thesis and ban users for that, especially on a community dedicated to the fediverse.

            Jesus fucking Christ, the users in question are outright denying massacres, a matter of historical fact not seriously questioned by mainstream academia, performed by a totalitarian state in WW2 on a civilian population, but it’s okay because the totalitarian state isn’t Nazi Germany? It’s just a ‘debatable historical thesis’?

            This is fucked, and it’s extremely strange that you don’t see that.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
              6·
              5 months ago

              The debatable part is that the USSR might have considered it a valid tactic to buy time, which is the main thesis of the specific post quoted above. I think it is a postwar rationalisation and Stalin had no qualms about working with Hitler, but that is also debatable.

              What however isn’t debatable is that community moderators can and should remove comments that are only made to derail discussions.

              • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
                2·
                5 months ago

                The debatable part is that the USSR might have considered it a valid tactic to buy time, which is the main thesis of the specific post quoted above. I think it is a postwar rationalisation and Stalin had no qualms about working with Hitler, but that is also debatable.

                Indeed, thanks for pointing it out.

                What however isn’t debatable is that community moderators can and should remove comments that are only made to derail discussions.

                I read the whole chain of comments, it actually was started by another commenter that mentioned Poland, and then started the whole thing. You can have a look here if you are interested: https://slrpnk.net/post/10244872/9112924

      • barsquid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        5 months ago

        I 100% agree with removing the historical revisionism.

        I don’t quite agree with banning the first two comments. But I do agree they are misinformation. Unless we can surface mod logs about historical facts the mods/instance admins don’t like getting people banned from .world?

        I’m with you on choosing a smaller instance, though. I moved to .world after I mistakenly had an account on .ml, so I was still pretty new to Lemmy.

        This gets back to the original point made in that thread: I chose to move because I had been banned for I don’t even know what. Meanwhile the other person was expressing that any amount of collateral damage to minorities is justified as long as he can see white “crackers” suffer and be killed under a Trump authoritarian government.

      • awwwyissss@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        5 months ago

        “You don’t understand!! The USSR was allied with the Nazis because they were fighting the Nazis!!!”

        I’ve seen you post a lot of fantastic stuff on here and appreciate the good changes you’re actively bringing to the Fediverse, but I have to disagree on this one.

        • Shyfer@ttrpg.networkEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          What was wrong with the post specifically? It all looks true and sourced to me. A non aggression pact is not the same as being allies with the Nazis unless you think Sweden, Switzerland, and the US were allied with the Nazis, too, for a time. The USSR needed time to build up their forces and get a buffer zone since the people they wanted to ally with refused to fight the enemy they were scared of, an enemy they had to prepare for.

          • awwwyissss@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            5 months ago

            It’s ridiculous, on its face. They wanted a “buffer zone?” So that gave them the right to violently invade people’s countries? Justified the next half century of murder and torture after the Nazis were defeated? Come on.

            Regarding the non-aggression pact, if they were scared of the Nazis they would have fought them while the Allies fought them. Hitler broke the Ribbentrop Pact, not the USSR. More revisionism propaganda.

            They did both of those things because the Kremlin is a violent imperial power that has put many millions of innocent people under the ground, with or without the facade of communism. The gulag isn’t just a meme, and there are good reasons their neighbors hate them.

            • Shyfer@ttrpg.networkEnglish
              2·
              5 months ago

              I don’t think it gives them right, nor do I think it was the right thing to do, but it does explain it from a real politik point of view, especially after being left alone by western countries. Countries do similar stuff all the time, and I think it’s more morally justifiable than the US extending their reach by bombing the hell out of Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, most of South America, etc. They can’t even justify those things with self-defense.

              They didn’t attack at the same time because they were weren’t strong enough yet and knew it. I thought that other comment already established that. It makes sense. It would explain why Hitler pushed so far into the USSR on their military campaign. Entering a war is a hard thing to justify for people at home. It’s easier when you are provoked. Hell, the US didn’t start attacking with their troops at the same time, either, for the same reason. They had to wait until Pearl Harbor. In fact, didn’t they even officially enter even later?

              The USSR had some major problems, but the issue I have noticed is that people always talk as if the USSR is some extra ordinary evil empire, but when you look at everything, it’s not too much worse than the US. The US also had prison labor camps with a vast amount of people in it, except it had a racial component. They also had a huge, surveillance state (just ask MLK, Jr, or Fred Hampton). They also had internal purges (see Hollywood). They also deployed troops and bombs around the world, spreading murder and torture, in an imperialist fashion. The only thing is they don’t have to worry about being invaded, so they don’t have to make those same kinds of decisions with the fear of the safety of their citizens close to home. And yet no one talks about the US with the same vitriol. I’m kind of appreciating the even handed view of being in the middle of these multiple echo chambers between lemmy.world and like hexbear or lemmygrad lol.

              • awwwyissss@lemm.eeEnglish
                1·
                5 months ago

                You have a twisted perspective… are you getting your info from YouTube or something?

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
    19·
    5 months ago

    I don’t know what thread you’re talking about, but rather than pointing broadly to the modlog, why not point out some specific examples. “Banned for misinformation” isn’t very helpful without knowing what that alleged misinformation is. If it’s genuinely spreading lies, that’s very different from if it doesn’t match someone’s political ideology.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    16·
    5 months ago

    This problem has an easy answer. Join a smaller instance.

    We came here to find a decentralized network. We can access all of it from anywhere. Even mastodon can comment on lemmy posts. There is no need to centralize to the biggest servers.

  • loaf@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    14·
    5 months ago

    Those mods are… special.

    I wouldn’t care if other instances just blocked them outright. It would suck for those who are registered there, but to me, it’s no different from defederating from Nazi apologists.

    • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      13·
      5 months ago

      Based on this, I would almost suggest creating a third “Fediverse” community, be it on lemm.ee, sh.itjust.works or reddthat.com, communities known for honest admins, and with a group of mods that could be trusted.

      However, I guess finding people wanting to mod that kind of place would be very difficult based on this kind of threads.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      7·
      5 months ago

      Can you provide an example of this?

      Because anti semetiam is just political tactic that is generally used to discredit people who criticize Israeli war crimes and other gross misconduct.

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          5·
          5 months ago

          Is that an example of anti semeticism? I am not following. Looks like people are having a discussion mostly about israeli misconduct but broader history. some edge lord takes for sure…

          I will admit I am not following what the OP is actually trying to do. I am assuming it is to be inflammatory to get the comment section going?

            • sunzu@kbin.run
              7·
              5 months ago

              Please provide some example of actual anti semtism otherwise it seems like you just using the term in bad faith because you don’t like what people have to say about Israel’s misconduct.

                • awwwyissss@lemm.eeEnglish
                  6·
                  5 months ago

                  I think you’re almost completely conflating anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-semitism.

                  Continuing to push this will only piss people off because it’s insulting to their intelligence that you think they might believe it.

    • VeganCheesecakeEnglish
      6·
      5 months ago

      Calling out that bombing a population makes it more likely for people who lost families and homes to radicalise seems sensible. Under the post, there is a lot of criticism of Israel, which in my eyes isn’t necessarily antisemitism, which of course doesn’t mean that there aren’t antisemitic critics of Israel.

      Of course, Israel is allowed to defend itself against attack, but what it has done and is currently doing in Gaza cannot in good faith be called defending itself.

      Regardless of all that, as long as it isn’t very clear that there is no effort made to moderate incitement of violence and hate speech, it is rather difficult to hold a platform accountable for the speech of it’s users.

        • VeganCheesecakeEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          I have read the thread, and sure, there is some sympathy for Hamas that seems questionable, but nothing more extreme than what you’re likely to read on most other online platforms. And while there are certainly things being said that I don’t agree with, I think that on an intellectual level, it makes sense that mistreating a population leads to people in that population becoming more likely to support extremist causes.

          Also, I assume they’re using Hetzner, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to switch to a different hosting provider in a different region if Hetzner decides to shut them down.

          I am from Germany and I’m really not sure what law you’d apply here anyway. There’s the NetzDG, but that, to my knowledge, only applies to platforms that are run with the goal of making a profit, which I don’t think applies to most lemmy instances.

            • VeganCheesecakeEnglish
              2·
              5 months ago

              Dann bin ich, was die aktuelle Gesetzeslage angeht wahrscheinlich nicht mehr auf dem neuesten Stand, und müsste mich da selbst noch mal einlesen. Je nach dem wo die Admins selbst zu Hause sind, steht und fällt die Wahrscheinlichkeit halt sehr, ob das tatsächlich weiterreichen rechtliche Konsequenzen hat, selbst wenn gerichtlich entschieden werden sollte, dass sie strikter gegen solche Aussagen hätten vorgehen müssen.

              Mit dem Argument wollte ich nicht ausdrücken, dass das ok ist, sondern hauptsächlich, dass das impliziert, dass rechtliche Konsequenzen, sollten diese nicht recht arbiträr sein, erstmal unwahrscheinlich erscheinen.

              Ich finde, dass man den Staat Israel und seine Regierung für sein Handeln kritisieren kann, ohne dass das antisemitisch ist. Natürlich werden die meisten Antisemiten auch Israel hassen, aber das macht nicht andersrum jeden Kritiker von Israel zum potentiellen Antisemiten, und so lange diese Kritik logisch fundiert ist, sehe ich auch nicht, wieso dieser Verdacht, wenn es nicht weitere Faktoren gibt, aufkommen sollte. Israel und das jüdisch sein auf diese Art zu vermengen nimmt in meinen Augen zudem Juden die stimme, die der Israelischen Regierung kritisch gegenüber stehen.

              Es ist, denke ich, unstrittig, dass die Art und Weise auf die die Israelische Regierung in den letzten Monaten gehandelt hat, die auch von unabhängigen Medien berichtet wurde, wenn nicht gänzlich, zumindest in Teilen kritikwürdig ist.