1y ago

[Discussion] Let's talk about lemmy.ml

Because someone, eventually, is going to make this post anyway, we might as well get it over with. I know someone posted something a week ago, but I feel something a little more neutral would be useful.

There's a lot of talk on lemmy.world right now about lemmy.ml at an instance level (edit: see here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20400058). A lot of it is very similar to the discussions we've had here before- accusations of ideologically-based censorship, promotion of authoritarian left propaganda, 'tankie-ism', etc. The subject of the admin's, and Lemmy dev's, political beliefs is back up as a discussion point. The word defederation is getting thrown around, and some of our beloved sh.it.heads are part of the conversation.

What do people think about lemmy.ml? Is there evidence that the instance is managed in such a way that it creates problems for Lemmy users, and/or users of sh.itjust.works specifically? Are they problems that extend to the entire instance or primary user base, or are the examples referenced generally limited to specific communities/moderators/users? Are people here, in short, interested in putting federation to lemmy.ml to a vote?

To our admin team and moderators: What are your experiences with lemmy.ml? Have you run into any specific problems with their userbase, or challenges related to our being federated with them?

Full disclosure: I have very little personal stake in this. I don't really engage with posts about international events, I don't share my political beliefs (such as they are) online beyond "Don't be a shitbag, help your fellow human out when you can", and have not run into any of the concerns brought up personally. But I'm also not the kind of user who would butt against this stuff often in the first place.

What I will say is that I have not personally witnessed activites like brigading or promotion of really nasty shit from lemmy.ml. I cannot say this about other instances we defederated from before. But again, this may just be a product of how I use Lemmy, and does not account for the experiences of others.

This is just an opportunity for those who do have strong opinions on this topic to say their piece and, more importantly, share their evidence.

If nothing else, given similar conversations a year ago, this will be an interesting account of what sh.itjust.works looks like today (happy belated cake day everybody!)

You're viewing a single thread.

109 comments

Hello! I'm a guy who decided to join lemmy a few months ago, specifically because I was absolutely enraged by how moderation on Reddit worked. I am also taking part rather vigorously in the conversation about how much I dislike .ml moderation practices! I think I might be a little bit of an agitator in all this, because In joined lemmy after about a medium bit of research, and then jumped into it full tilt with the idea of "why not, I spent so much time as a revolutionary, myself!" And then I hit whatever the internet/globalization has done to what I recognize as leftist political spaces.
AMA, I guess!
For some background about myself, I'm an older millennial, who grew up with disparate web forums which were generally hidden behind a random website. My favorite haunt was punkbands.com, and loved LAN parties and early MMORPGs. Anyways, I had to get off the internet for a while to make a living, but eventually got to a spot where I could again visit the world wide web during working hours. One of my coworkers introduced me, through my first "smart phone" (an android, like, whatever was around in 2011 and cheap as fuck but still let me get online) to reddit. I really loved that old(ish) school internet, where people could spam and insult eachother within limits, and the community policed itself through a somewhat democratic process. I was legit excited to join lemmy, given how far I think reddit had fallen and how much disinformation had infected it, and how similar it appeared to the older, more democratic internet of my youth.
However, I found that a large part of lemmy is dominated by people who profess to be leftists, but ambush you with ideological purity tests and subsequent abuse if you don't pass. I questioned a post on the .ml world news sub that came from a source that is literally a Syrian and Bolivian governmental news outlet, which alleged that the US military was stealing crude oil and raw wheat from Syrian oil derricks/Syrian farmers. I used mediabiasfactcheck.com to support my questioning of this source. I also appealed to logic, questioning why the US would steal things that it exports. A mod there (I believe the username is davos) engaged me in a conversation spanning hours, where we exchanged information about whether mediabiasfactcheck.com was a reasonable source to help assess the validity of media. While the conversation was uncomfortable, we each exchanged information and links supporting our arguments. Because I did not accept his outright rejection of medibiasfactcheck.com as a way to assist with the judement of media, I was banned and all of my comments were deleted.
Since then, I have met another .ml mod (username yogthos), and engaged in a long conversation about this same topic (.ml censorship). It was in a meta sub, hosted on the .ml instance. The conversation I am referring to has since been deleted, and I am not sure if it is possible to find it again, since my own history has disappeared; I will be happy to answer questions of anybody with the tech savvy to retrieve these exchanges. Anyway. In this meta thread, I engaged several users about the issue of unfair .ml moderation, alongside several other lemmy users. During the course of this exchange, a .ml user made an assertion that the OP (who was complaining about the "tankie problem") was banned from the .ml instance because they had, somewhere undefined, insisted that the Tienanmen Massacre had actually happened. As a note, please understand that this was about a week before the start of June, and nobody so far in this thread had mentioned Tienanmen Square. Anywhere. Anyways, I questioned this particular statement, and yogthos suddenly butted in with a ton of weird sources that supported his claim that Tiennenma Square never happened. They insisted that the whole thing was a Color Revolution that was sponsored by the CIA, and that actually the students of the Tienanmen Square had attacked the Chinese Soldiers. I insisted that this was inconsistent with prevailing evidence, but was told that I simply needed to watch the various videos and read the blogs to understand that it was all untrue. I also engaged with some uders about my own ideology, where I was insulted as a "lib" for stating my intense distaste for authoritarianism. yogthos, the .ml moderator who I spoke with, told me that "libs don't understand" that authoritarianism is ok if it is in defense of fascism... but did not expound as to how fascism was defined.
As for my evidence, I have shared it in some of the other posts. However, if you'll look at the moderation history of .ml, under my user name, you will see that I am banned from several subs, and I think from the whole .ml instance. It will be for "Rule 4," which from what I can tell is spam, or advertising. I have never taken part in anything that resembles spam or advertising. I have, though, had comments that insist that there was some kind of violence surrounding Tienanmen Square, or debate the validity of news from Syrian government media sources, removed from .ml instances. You may also notice that I was banned from subs like palestine and usa, which I have never actually participated in, aside from upvoting or downvoting.
You will also, looking back, hopefully find the initial conversations I reference in this post. If you have specific questions, I will try to figure out how to find them, using the mod log.
This is a long post... and I'm sorry. I guess I just really don't want some bullshitters to be able to influence roughly 50k web users without at least a little bit of push back.
I'm sure I have missed a ton here, and paradoxically written far too much. I am happy to answer any questions or critique, as long as it is relatively polite and relevant.
Edit: I'm also just kind of a nerd about propaganda and discourse in international relations, especially in online spaces. I've studied it. Ive written papers on it. I find these things incredibly meaningful and important, so I've gotten involved here.
- I am not from this instance. But I’m very happy to have you on the federation we need more people willing to be open and honest about their experiences. Thank you 🙏
- Edit: Added an additional choice - block whole instance at user level - to 'option' list. If you, nahuse, or anyone else have ideas for options f through zz, feel free to say so!
  Thanks for joining the discussion, nahuse! I appreciate the specifics you've provided.
  As an aside, you and a few others raise an interesting point re: archiving of deleted comments, particularly when there's evidence of those comments getting removed from the modlog intentionally (I'm not claiming that this is objectively true - I don't know, but it is one of the common claims in the broader discussion here and on similar posts). Seems like a worthwhile project for someone with the interest, skills, and time to develop. But anyway.
  Your experience does echo that of other politically engaged sh.it.heads* in this thread. I would ask - given the choice between
  a) blocking lemmy.ml communities with evidence of ideologically motivated moderation (either on a case by case basis, or as part of a community-sourced blocklist - something I mentioned here before but do not know can be implemented), and using alternatives for 'controversial' topics;
  b) blocking lemmy.ml at the instance level, as a user;
  c) joining an instance which is not federated with lemmy.ml;
  d) having sh.itjust.works defederate from lemmy.ml as a whole; or
  e) keeping things as they currently are, in terms of your engagement and 'positioning' [eg. Instance of choice, community engagement, etc.] - retaining the ability to try and engage on lemmy.ml communities with the same risk of ban/blanket ban, and talk about it there while enfranchised and elsewhere in the Threadiverse during ban periods.
  which makes the most sense to you/would be preferable?
  The dynamics of Lemmy instances are kind of interesting, as each can have very different approaches to moderation. An instance admin may simply have a policy of "Please just don't post anything that's going to make CSIS or the RCMP knock on my door" (Canada bias here), and individual community moderators either a) apply an even hand with that edict in mind, or b) apply and enforce more restrictive policies. Others may have a more consistent throughline based in interests, political beliefs, and so on - which seems to be the case for lemmy.ml and is why we see these blanket community bans over innocuous comments.
  I'd like to touch on that 'innocuous' point - what I've personally seen results in bans/deletion looks like fairly bog standard internet political discourse (alongside legitimately not cool stuff, but that's not in scope at the moment to tease out). You present a point, you get a counterpoint, things get a little heated - with the difference that the person with the heated 'not our flavour of far-left discourse' comment has a much higher risk of getting ban hammered.
  I don't think this is ok - but at the same time, this is a moderation choice of a specific group using a specifically allocated set of resources. Alternative communities exist, and can be used, that may not have this problem (though someone will always find something to complain about re: moderation practices, tale as old as the internet)
  There is, of course, the stickier point of lemmy.ml being not necessarily the main instance (see imaqtpie's post, makes some good points), but the Lemmy dev's instance. I don't think the problems people have with lemmy.ml (usually in global events and political discussion communities - unfortunately resulting in blanket bans from unrelated communities on the instance in some cases) extend to the tool/protocol itself [see: exploding-heads, all of the more distasteful instances that exist], but this may be a concern for some [see Socsa's comments here]. It may raise concerns/doubts about Lemmy as a whole. It sucks - I love this thing - but it shouldn't be unacknowledged.
  *If you haven't seen this term before, it's what I like to call users of this instance (much to the chagrin of some :) ). Think Deadheads - enthusiasts of sh.itjust.works. A little cheeky, but ultimately good natured and fun - which kind of sums up my feelings about this place. We love sh.it.heads - not to be confused with shitheads.
  
  I too have been somewhat of an agitator in this. In my defense, data getting removed from the modlogs sounds indefensable to me - as in, incompatible with the principles of the Fediverse where we are supposed to "trust" the instances that are federated together?
  In Dessalines' defense, that may very well have been real yet merely a bug in testing the newer features of v0.19.4? Only an instance admin would be able to dig deeper into that, and even that requires some bit of coding or data wrangling skill to either constantly monitor the differences in the modlog before vs. after the alleged edits, or as was suggested to have happened, be caught purely by chance (as one person claimed).
  I am not volunteering to spin up an instance to test though, so I will drop this matter and give lemmyl.ml the benefit of the doubt on it. i.e., Lemmy.ml having been in the process of upgrading to 0.19.4-rc.6 wasn't widely known at the time, but now that we know that, bugs may be more expected than not during such a process?
  Even so it does not change how hearing about (or observing first-hand?) such heavy-handed moderation practices as nahuse described will drive people away from the Fediverse, thereby lowering overall content for us all. Saying that it is their instance to do with as they please is like saying that it is fine for porn to appear on porn websites - which it very much is! (or should be, imho) - but my goodness, please label it so that people do not walk into it unawares!?!?! Similarly I am not... entirely happy that hexbear.net has a community dedicated to dunking on people (Chapotraphouse; maybe it is therapy for them?), but now that I know that, let them feel free to be however they want, but oh my, please WARN someone before letting them just walk into that hailstorm of comments!!! (which continued for WEEKS after I made some comment about President Biden doing better than I expected in some small matter, long after I stopped responding but my consent to continuing the conversation no longer seemed to matter to them; and then the next week I similarly walked into a lemmygrad.ml post and had the same thing happen)
  The very concept of Federation makes that significantly more complicated b/c "we" choose to show that content in "our" spaces, so it is both theirs, and after it comes over, ours too. Fortunately, the site.content_warning in v0.19.4 will allow such warnings to be delivered, though I am not certain how it is implemented (it says prior to showing images or viewing a community, but what about a post from a community? e.g. !memes@lemmy.ml has a great deal of content that can be... off-putting to people). Note that it says that the warning will only be delivered the first time a user triggers it - though again the details remain to be seen, e.g. will a cookie remember that past a session for the same login?
  So I personally would like to see an option "f" added that would use the new site.content_warning ability as/if it rolls out with v0.19.4. Though I have no say in this as a non-member of sh.itjust.works, so I say this only to explain my thoughts in case they were of interest. The tricky part about that might be how to implement it: the temptation would be to do so only in the more "controversial" communities, and yet the admins of lemmy.ml are doing blanket bans among many communities, e.g. !memes@lemmy.ml, despite people never having commented in them before. So they seem to think that the entire instance is one big community in that respect - or else how can that be justified? - hence the warning should be to anywhere across all of the instance, not just each community, should it not? (and again, whether that is even possible, or if it would have to be applied to each individual community plus all future ones created, remains to be seen)
- I guess I just really don't want some bullshitters to be able to influence roughly 50k web users without at least a little bit of push back.
  I don't mean to instigate an argument, but I think this comment illustrates pretty well why .ml might actually be justified in judicious use of the ban hammer. If people are coming in specifically motivated by an ideological disagreement, then maybe they're well within their right (ethically I mean, they're within their right just on the basis of owning the instance as it is)
  
  But the person you replied to wasn't talking about ideological disagreements - they were talking about factual disagreements.
  As in, the .ml mods seem to deny facts.
  
  Yes I'm sure OP was having a very rational conversation about widely accepted and not at all contested facts that are not at all important to any ideological perspective.
  
  The Tiananmen square massacre is not a contested fact. It's just a fact.
  
  Yes, a famously uncontested fact
  And I am sure that fact was brought up completely organically and not specifically because op knew it was a source of ideological tension
  
  Truth isn't an ideology though. You keep trying to draw a false equivalence between the two. Truth is just truth. Ignoring the truth is simply acting in bad faith, and that's something any ideology can do for any truths. If a group is denying that truth then they are trying to spread misinformation.
  
  I'm not making a statement about the truthfulness of the specific claims being raised, i'm just pointing out that the topic is very famously contentious, and going to that space specifically to raise it knowing full well it is not a welcome one is itself bad-faith trolling and deserving of removal and possibly a ban, depending on how hostile you're being.
  It isn't your space where you can decide what topics are fair game, and frankly whining about it here isn't going to change anything about their moderation policies.
  
  Seems to me you're just skirting around the fact that there's a group that specifically against the truth.
  Not only that, but now you're saying a group has the right to pretend that a fact is not a fact, and they did he allowed to have a space where they can push lies without repercussions.
  But even ignoring all that, moderation where you get banned and censored from communities unrelated to the where you post a fact is just acting in bad faith. It's no longer moderation as you state, it's actual censorship.
  
  I'm not skirting around anything, I'm just pointing to the problem. If someone walked into a LGBTQ forum and started harassing users about male and famale biology phenotypes, they'd be within their right to ban that person. It doesn't matter if what they were saying was factually correct or not if the reason they're there is to harass them along an ideological fault-line, especially if they're instigating that topic themselves to begin with.
  It's their space, they're allowed to keep certain charged topics out of it, even if you disagree with them or if you feel like they're trying to censor what you consider to be factually accurate. You can talk about that topic anywhere else you want, they can't censor you in your own space.
  Honestly I think they're not being strict enough, if it were me i'd be taking notes on everyone here affirming their intention to push this topic in my space and just preemptively ban them.
  
  Username checks out
  PS: it's not considered factually accurate. It is.

109 comments