Lead Lemmy Developer, Dessalines, denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre and praising the Uyghur Genocide
https://sh.itjust.works/post/8419342
Dessalines AKA “parentis_shotgun” on Reddit, is the main Lemmy dev, also the admin of lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml.
Their post and discussions on Reddit (archive as the original post must have been removed):
Please join the discussions for Lemmy.ml tankie censorship problem:
https://lemmy.world/post/16211417
And the discussions for finding/creating alternative communities on other instances:
https://lemmy.world/post/16235541
What is a tankie?
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical.
Why is criticism never accepted?
Why is it “leave” instead of addressing the issues brought up?
Because of federation.
If this were an internal issue with Lemmy.ml, ie the people on Lemmy.ml are collectively in favor of change, then it’s different. If people outside of Lemmy.ml want to change Lemmy.ml, doesn’t it make more sense to just build up what you think is better, so you don’t need Lemmy.ml at all?
It’s not that simple though due to the Federation. The .ml community are blended together with everything.
Asking for more reasonable moderation isn’t a big ask.
Is the Lemmy.ml instance federated with everyone against their will?
This is basically a smear campaign, Lemmy.world has been on an anti-Communist witch hunt for a long time, always has been. Marxists of all varieties are targeted by this witch hunt, when Lemmy.world can defederate at any time. Lemmy.ml’s admins want to have a connected fediverse, so they have already stated that they won’t defed .world, so .world’s users can either block, defederate, or learn to live with it.
That’s the entire point of federation, really.
If showing failures in moderation constitutes a smear campaign, maybe don’t go banning people because they disagree with you.
It’s only a failure of moderation from your outside perspective, I’m sure people inside .ml might feel differently
I had a calm, respectful comment about China’s attempts to censor the Tiananmen Square photo removed for no reason, and without my knowledge. The idea that they’re conducting “normal moderation” is laughable.
why does it matter if you think it’s normal? it’s not your instance
This post is about informing people about the nature of that instance; something many people don’t necessarily intend to interface with when they’re just exploring their favorite niche topic community which simply happens to be there. We don’t want people to unintentionally end up in that crowd without knowing about their principles or lack thereof.
But what if I don’t want to live in my own echo chamber, nor do I want to be subjected to another echo chamber within which I can’t participate? Having fair moderation practices and not banning people from participating in completely unrelated subs doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
In my view this being completely about .world not liking .ml politics is a straw man. This is about decorum and applying moderation practices equally, without bias, and avoiding punitive bans in unrelated communities.
You can simultaneously be in both chambers, that’s the nice thing about federation
I think it’s healthy for people to be pushed into modulating their own behavior when in mixed company, I think it encourages a richer and more challenging experience. I wouldn’t waltz into my local catholic church and start complaining about their stance on gay marriage, and then get mad when they decide they don’t want me there anymore. If you want to participate in that community, you have to find a way to communicate with them without crossing that ideological threshold. And if you’re just too dissimilar to get along at all then by golly, maybe that community isn’t a great fit.
Not if they ban you for asking the most basic of questions about moderation, or for having a different opinion.
Banning people for having different opinions is bad.
In my experience, “just asking questions” is never just asking questions, but I suppose that’s me presuming guilt
I’ve asked plenty of questions there and have never had a run in with their mods. I have to assume the question was insulting or disingenuous, or both.
But hey you can always make an account elsewhere and try again under better circumstances
“Why are there so many comments removed in this thread?” is a legitimate question.
I think you and me would get along great if we met in person.
But I hate your web personality, friend. At least so far.
I’m choosing to just reply to this comment to you in this particular thread, because I’m a bit exhausted after talking to this linkerbaan fella in another thread. But I think you and I could really see eye to eye on a bunch of things, assuming I’m not mixing you up with somebody else.
I like your moxie, if you’ll excuse any condescension you may detect (it’s not there, I promise).
But this shit is precisely why I wanna have a good internet space for legit debate. I sincerely hope I can find a spot that offers an open forum for some good faith political debate that isn’t moderated based on butt-hurt-ed-ness.
Then create a political debate comm? What’s stopping you from doing that? I’d personally block that community immediately, because online debate bros have probably the least tolerable kind of online behavior. Thinking you can walk into someone else’s community and start ‘political debate’ is probably why you can’t understand their moderation - if I was the mod I’d ban you too
I’m familiar with linkerbann, I like seeing him around
Hey, this is the history of human civilization since humans existed. You want an answer for why people don’t give up on their ideologies?
There is no issue with either. I fully support civil criticism and discussion. And I also support users moving to a place where they feel a better sense of community. I think it’s wrong to force people to interact with those that they don’t wish to. This is why the fediverse exists — to remove centralized control over the discourse.
How about supporting users who want to improve their community instead of finding a new one?
If you don’t like it, you can leave.
I support that as well. My initial point was from the perspective of users not originating from lemmy.ml being annoyed with how lemmy.ml is administrating itself. If the users of lemmy.ml wish to stay to try and improve it, then I fully stand behind them, but, at the same time, I still support lemmy.ml’s autonomy.
Are people on Lemmy.ml advocating to improve their community, or is it just .worlders wanting to change .ml?
It’s likely both. The ratio, however, I’m not sure of.