DBZer0 has begun banning people simply for believing in the concept of copyright

Advocating piracy is one thing, but now banning people for believing in copyright? That's like banning people for following the law. That is banning people for following the law. What gives? And to think a while ago I declared I wouldn't have any reason to not take their bans (or the motives behind them) seriously.

Are we trying to get world governments to ban Lemmy (or, worse, the fediverse)? Love the administrative decisions or hate them, such decisions will drag down the whole fediverse. Typically sites are defederated to protect the sites defederating them from liability. Will this be an example, or does this, out of convenience, not apply? Are we forgetting a large portion of the fediverse's demographics consist of artists trying to make a damn living?

You're viewing a single thread.

87 comments

TLDR: OP has no idea the difference between comms and instances, or what the fediverse actually is, and thinks dumbasses trolling AI art comms are doing nothing wrong.
- It really does seem like the entire concept of decentralized, ground up, mutually interconnected systems... is just actually incomprehensible to a certain number of people.
  Things can be organized in a complex manner, but also not centralized with a god king or round table of mob bosses at the top of everything?
  Unpossible!!!
  I want to talk to the manager's manager!
  
  I mean, there are admins and mods, don't oversell it. ^^' But also I am honestly lost on how do you manage to think of hundreds of interconnected forums basically as one thing.
  
  Its true, there will probably always be admins and mods, to some extent... but like on the dbzer0 instance, they're kind of big into having some open, democratic input back toward the behavior of mods and admins... but yeah I wouldn't say that level of attempting to actually be accountable is common on lemmy in general, so I am overselling it a bit, lol.
  At the same time, I stand by the idea that many people just actually cannot comprehend the concept of a non rigid, non totally top down, centralized hierarchy, the concept is not mentally parseable for them.
  Which is funny, because even in the most commonly cited examples of such things, like say a military command structure... yeah turns out if you dive into one of those, you often find that its more effective and efficient to give individual units within the larger hierarchy a good deal more leeway and independent decision making autonomy, than it is to keep everything strictly top down... because such a structure can respond better and more quickly when shit goes awry, makes a leadership decapitation strike less devastating, etc etc.
  
  I mean, imma be honest. Hierarchy helps. You need someone up there to see the bigger picture. But you also need enough horizontal movement to be able to execute the piece of it that falls to you.
  I am gonna be blunt also, I am one of people who cannot graps actually horizontal structure on bigger tasks etc. I do however get it on smaller scale and with competent people, it's probably hella more efficient. For example thanks to not overloading someone "up there" with decisions and responsibilities.
  
  Oh I completely agree that certain kinds and degrees of hierarchy are or can be more efficient than... absolutely none.
  It very much depends on what the organization is attempting to achieve, what its scope and size are.
  Generally speaking, you can't really achieve too many complex, specific goals... without some manner of organizing your endeavor.
  It sounds like, to me at least, you actually do grasp this better than you think you do, realizing that this is actually a complex topic with many potential variables at play.
  You wanna learn a martial art?
  How to shoot a gun?
  Yeah, a fairly strict, top down, rigid hierarchy with strict rules probably makes more sense, because the potential downsides of 'crowd sourcing' the learning experience could be literally fatal, and these things are usually done at the scale of 5, 10, 20 people in a class.
  But, if you scale that exact same structure all the way up to an entire military, you end up with WW1 style shit where entire divisions are thrown into advancing through a friendly artilery barrage due to poor timing or a delayed message, the overall commander being overwhelmed, the rigidity of strict top down adherence to all orders from superiors and fear of insubordination leading to massive catastrophic self inflicted losses.
  Conversely, a very, very poorly coordinated set of guerrilla warfare style, totally autonomous allied fighting forces... might accidentally end up ambusing each other, or each cell decides to attack the same percieved enemy vulnerability at the same time, and then all point fingers at each other when they realize no one is now defending some critical asset or area, which has now been captured or destroyed.
  For a business endeavor... very similar dynamics can play out.
  Maybe far too much management leads to nothing actually getting done, or even worse, dramaticly expensive projects that end up being a barely functional mess, because everyone is spending more time in meetings than working, constantly having their work and project scope changed, altered, amended...
  Or maybe there is too little direction, and everyone is doing neat cool pet projects, but the critical underlying business processes are being neglected or overwhelmed.
  It is always a balancing act.
  If you have a more lateral, more horizontal org structure... those individual units or components need to be more independently capable, which can be more costly than a more streamlined structure, but it can also be more resilient and flexible overall.
  And there probably does still need to be some kind of mechanism for coordinating the overall actions of the units/components.
  You've also got the whole dynamic of... does your org structure actually promote people to positions of more relative responsibility and power... via merit and actual competency?... or does it just reward sycophantic ass kissers, or self serving, machiavellian behind the scenes manipulators?
  Or, if you have a more diffuse, flat, democratic 'power structure'... does it spend all of its time debating things and not actually doing anything? or does it have some method of internally regulating that problem?
  
  I counted a dozen communities where this happened. Typically, when someone is banned from multiple communities for the same reason simultaneously, an admin is involved and that it might be an instance ban in disguise. Is this wrong?
  
  I guess it could functionally be an instance ban if literally every single comm moderator got together and banned a user from every single comm on an instance...
  But I am not seeing that. I am seeing a slew of users getting banned from 2 or 3 comms focused on different kinds of AI-gen art, because they've been virulently anti-ai art in those comms and elsewhere.
  Its also fairly common for a single person to be a mod of several smaller niche comms... and if the whole thing is that they've identified a person as combatative troll who breaks other various rules in other various places... then yeah, they just get put on a shit-disturber/troll blacklist, for those comms that are small and basically function as safe spaces for small groups.
  As I understand it, as I read the modlog... these users you've included in your post screenshots and such are not literally banned from the entire dbzero instance, nor all its comms... if either of those were the case, you could see it in the modlogs.
  Again, as I understand it... while modlogs obsure the name of the moderator or admin taking an action... all actions are otherwise detailed in full.
  
  I guess it could functionally be an instance ban if literally every single comm moderator got together and banned a user from every single comm on an instance…
  It's more like a federation glitch. The modlogs don't always represent a situation correctly. Hence what you said after that. On my end, it appears as multiple communities. So I stand corrected.
  
  General best practice for viewing modlogs:
  Go to the actual instance's website and view their own modlog.
  That's why I provided the link to it my post a couple levels up. Sometimes silly stuff can happen if you don't do it that way.
  Also, for what its worth, I'm not the one throwing the single downvote on these more recent comments between us.
- I mean, it's called the fediverse. That alone should cue OP that it's not a single site.
- I counted a dozen communities where this happened. Typically, when someone is banned from multiple communities for the same reason simultaneously, an admin is involved and that it might be an instance ban in disguise. Is this wrong?

87 comments