UPDATE: The Unbans are showing up on modlog now.:
unban log screenshot
~~I have traded the month-long ban in the many communities for a 6-day ban in vegan@lemmy.dbzero.com, which is a more reasonable ban~~. this ban has also been lifted now. I appreciate the cooperation from the mod over this misunderstanding.
So it seems i've gotten a month-long ban in..... over 30 communities across lemmy.dbzer0.com, sopuli.xyz, lemmy.ca, programming.dev, and several others, for this comment here.
Screen cap of comment for posterity:
It's directly replying to a comment saying they can't imagine why anyone thought otherwise about fish feeling pain, which is reasonable. You might notice the quotation marks, because it's satirizing people's mental gymnastics about fishes' pain perception. It was meant in jest, exclusively.
It seems likely that a single mod took this joke wrong and chose to ban me on every community they have control over.
Y'know, concentrating power in the hands of a single person / group defeats the purpose of decentralisation.
I can understand if the damage is limited to communities within a single instance, but when a ban is so far-reaching - across so many instances - it makes me wonder what's the point of choosing Lemmy over, say, Reddit.
It's still the same problem again, just with different people in charge - like Bluesky vs Twitter.
lemmy fixes admin abuse, not mod abuse.
It doesn't "fix" admin abuse either - see feddit.org situation. It only helps with admin abuse as the bans apply to part of the universe rather that to the entire Lemmy.
Yes, that's how it fixes it. You cannot be banned from lemmy, only individual servers.
That is not "fixing". It is partial remedy.
Life isn't perfect.
Sadly.
If it were perfect for you, how many more would find it intolerable? Ideally, we can live and let live. Life isn't ideal, either.
I think it's as much of a fix as is possible. If your problem is the owner or admin of the server your best solution is to leave. On reddit that meant leaving reddit. On lemmy it means you have to find another instance
My understanding is it works slightly differently.
It means that all users of an instance which banned you won't be able to see your comments even if these are made on another instance. It therefore stops you from participating with all the users of the instance which banned you, even on other instances.
Thus my comment about the limited remedy.
How is it only a partial remedy?
Because you still can be banned across individual servers so multiple communities, sometimes very large - and there isn't anyone who can unban you when it happens.
I don't see any solution to that that doesn't end up horribly.
I do.
Admins should have an ability to unban but not to ban people so essentially to control moderators but not to be moderators themselves. Moderators shouldn't be allowed to moderate more than a couple of communities.
Alternatively "membership" of Lemmy would be conditional upon acceptance of appeal process where admins of different instance(s) would decide if someone should be unbanned.
The second part is almost completely impossible to do.
Difficult, yeah. Impossible, no. It could be one of conditions of using the software. But I am not claiming it is easy.
Lemmy's license forbids doing this.
Other software could be developed to use it instead.
If so that obviously would have to change first.
And the other point?
Eh?
Other people making compatible software with no such license.
Ah. I don't know enough about it to comment. I was under impression that Lemmy is THE software but I may be wrong.
Lemmy uses a protocol called activitypub, which any software can add support for.
piefed and mbin are other compatible softwares.
Yeah, the problem of modreach is definitely not a solved problem. The other problem, of all discourse being directly controllable from on high by a profit-driven company, however, is solved by lemmy. I believe that was the original issue lemmy was meant to handle. And that problem does seem to be solved. We'll just have to handle the problem of public official reach the way we normally would.
There's a fine line and I guess it can happen when one isn't experienced enough or jaded.
For example, I don't think banning pitbull or staffie dogs is great. They are loving, loyal dogs if well-socialized by someone with the time, temperament, and consistency to do so. Banning these beautiful animals often means they are sent to shelters and euthanized wholesale, because they can't be placed . They didn't ask to be born, either.
Nonetheless, when I saw a pinned post in the"Ban Pit Bulls” community, I refrained from posting, even if it did seem rather an incongruent view alongside militant veganism. I'd already argued my points which were vehemently rejected.
But yptb just seems like a lot of whining by people unable to self-soothe and self-validate, imo, and I know people are going to be extremely offended by my saying so.
When was this? The one I used to see in All got new moderation (the mod being discussed) who introduced, what I thought, were reasonable rules to encourage actual discourse.
I get what you're saying about it before but, assuming they're being fairly enforced, I assume it's got to be better there now.
Oh that's encouraging. Maybe I missed it before. I don't currently own any, but I'm still ok with the breed in general.
We do and I feel like you do. That's why that community used to bug me so much.
I learned first hand that having a pit or pit mix is a lot different and they take a very patient owner and consistent method of training.
Yes, they can be stubborn! That said, I've been guilty of that.