If fedi node A and node B both have an anti-spam rule, it makes good sense that when a moderator removes a post for spam that it would be removed from both nodes. But what about other cases? Lemmy is a bit blunt and nuance-lacking in this regard.
For example, the parent of this thread was censored despite not breaking any rules. More importantly, it breaks no rules on slrpnk.net. Yet the slrpnk version was also removed.
I’m not sure exactly what the fix is. But in principle an author should be able to ask a slrpnk admin to restore the post in the slrpnk version of that community, so long as no slrpnk rules are broken by the post.
It’s one thing for various nodes to federate based on having compatible side-wide rules, but they aren’t necessarily aligned 100% and there are also rogue moderators who apply a different set of rules than what’s prescribed for a community.
Seems weird complaining about a removal from 10 months ago…
But yeah, as a mod, I’d HOPE that a removal gets it pulled from the various nodes. Taking something down for rule breaking means it really shouldn’t be propagating.
In this case, I don’t know what the rules of that community are, or rather were 10 months ago.
Seems weird complaining about a removal from 10 months ago…
I only discovered the censorship today when trying to search for my own post to reference from another post and gain a history of the discussion. That’s another problem… the fact that censorship is so quiet. It’s not a shadowban, but if you don’t make the effort to check whether you have been censored, it has the same effect as shadow banning on reddit. Though the client should get the blame for that (and in this case I use the stock web app).
(edit) Important to know why shadow banning is such a bad idea: it fails to teach a user to be a better user. If you do not inform a user that they broke a rule, they don’t learn from their mistake. Users should receive a loud and clear signal that their post was blocked because it broke rule X, so they learn the rules and can avoid repeating the mistake. Lemmy needs to improve on this.
But yeah, as a mod, I’d HOPE that a removal gets it pulled from the various nodes.
Indeed it makes sense from an efficiency standpoint. But there should be an override on every host.
Taking something down for rule breaking means it really shouldn’t be propagating.
Different venues have different rules, so the non-correctable status quo is not sensible. And in the case at hand, even the original post complied with the rules. This common problem is not limited to Reddit. Mods can-and-will abuse their power and apply non-existent rules. The mod log makes it optional to even specify a reason.
Different venues have different rules, but the moderators are enforcing the rules of their community, and as such the other venues should abide by that.
Say for instance I remove a post that’s overtly racist, but there’s some lemmy out there which is some Nazi white power bullshit, they shouldn’t be able to over-ride what is presented in my community just because it got copied to their server.
I’m not sure you understand that there are multiple copies of a message when multiple federated nodes are involved in a transaction. Every host involved has their own copy. They often delete their own copy not to censor but just because they are short on space. Every host admin should control their own persistent storage.
Software should serve its user. If you are developing a web browser, then the web browser should act in the interest of the user (the web “surfer”), not the website they are accessing. Developers sometimes get that backwards and design the client software to prioritize the interests of the server it connects to over that of the user. And this is what you’re suggesting.
If nazi instance is running Lemmy, the nazi admins are the user and their software should serve them. This is an important FOSS principle (“freedom 0”). In the non-FOSS world, sure, software serves the capitalist supplier. But in a FOSS context the Lemmy server should be working for the Lemmy admin (the user in this context) who runs it, regardless of their politics.
The tables can just as well be turned. A greenpeace instance might post something on a nazi instance which then gets censored on the nazi instance. Fair enough, but the greenpeace instance should have control over their own instance and be able to uncensor msgs on their own host.
(edit) It’s also important to understand the power balancing principles of the fedi. The fedi tries (though often fails) to balance out power. When a lousy mod takes a questionable action that then has a negative effect on other nodes, it’s a power imbalance. Ideally other nodes should not only have their own influence, but in a democratic sense it would be useful if nodes would become aware when other nodes overturn a removal, so they might consider their own intervention. Otherwise a one-off asshole can have too much influence.
deleted by creator
Dude, we nuked your post because you were being a nuisance. Stop being a nuisance.
Everyone sees the post because I cross-posted it. The link I posted is to the cross-post.
Inside that thread is the only content people cannot see. There were only two posts which I can expose here so people can verify your claim:
responder:
I remember reading a while back (so don’t take it as gospel) that, for Australia at least, legal tender meant that if you have a debt owed for something, legally that person has to allow you to settle the debt with legal tender currency.
However there is nothing that says they have to accept the transaction to begin with, meaning they were allowed to have a rule like this because if you didn’t accept it, they just didn’t sell to you, which means there was no debt accrued that you could settle with legal tender. And if you did accept it, you’ve already paid with your card, so no need for cash.
Don’t know if the same logic applies in Europe but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a similar justification. They have to accept legal tender for a debt, but they don’t have to allow the debt to be incurred.
my reply:
That’s exactly how it is in the US as well. The US makes a clear distinction between point of sale (PoS) transactions and debt payments. Legal tender must¹ be accepted accepted in the US as payment toward a debt. W.r.t. PoS, legal tender is protected in the sense that legal tender can be accepted, but both parties must agree.
I thought it was bizarre that #Belgium does not distinguish a PoS from a debt. But it was explained to me this way: Belgium is very contract-focused. Whether you have a PoS or debt, there is always a contract of terms that come into force when two parties begin a transaction or business relationship. So that contract is still in play when it comes time to pay a debt. So the Belgians see no need to make a distinction.
- “Must” is a simplification. A creditor can refuse to take the money and not face any legal consequences. But if a debtor manages to leave cash in the creditor’s possession, the debt is legally regarded as paid. E.g. you can leave the money on the creditor’s countertop/desk, etc, and walk out. Seems a bit off to do that though… i mean, you would want proof of that.
What supports this claim of being a nuisance?
I think this is it. You have an anti-cash agenda. Anything contrary to your world view is a “nuissance”. IOW, you censor ideas you disagree with regardless of how civil the discussion is. Yet there was never a rule banning #WarOnCash chatter. This supports my case that balance of power has merit amid power-abusing mods.
TL;DR: you’re the nuisance in this situation as you block civil, on topic discussion.
deleted by creator
That’s an interesting point that exposes another Lemmy problem. If a user bores the moderator, the moderator cannot block the user because that evades the moderation duty. Mods need visibility on every post. So in principle Lemmy could use a moderation delegation feature where perhaps a moderator can block a user iff there are multiple moderators and one of the other mods is not already blocking the user.
Of course if there’s a lot of that going on, then the mods may be unfit for the job. Moderators are best when they don’t view the subscribers as being there to serve the moderator’s entertainment needs.
deleted by creator
In fact I appreciate it. Thank you!
