(Lemmy) when a post is “removed by moderator”, it also gets removed from the federated node.
(Lemmy) when a post is “removed by moderator”, it also gets removed from the federated node.
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.
7Seems 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.
0Different 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.
4
Dude, we nuked your post because you were being a nuisance. Stop being a nuisance.
4Dude, 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.
1