this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
89 points (84.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

938 readers
208 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
(page 5) 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (14 children)

Gonna go against the grain here and say YDI.

As others have mentioned, liability. The hosts of Lemmy instances are doing an incredible service enabling us to use this platform for free. And in providing that service, they are also assuming a significant amount of risk in a rather volatile legal environment. The law views a platform that allows ("targets") minors very differently from one that is intended only for adults.

Additionally, TOS. Its as simple as that. This is not power tripping, this is just enforcement. Even if there was nothing explicity wrong about the behavior, once age is directly mentioned, liability is opened, and their hands are tied.

As a side note, there is nothing wrong with adult-only community spaces. Sometimes I want to have a discussion without worrying about whether the person on the other end is a literal child - there are enough adults that act like children as it is...

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

If LW has a tos they have to be consistent and follow it as a normal business practice for it to protect them when something goes wrong.

You waved a red flag and said I'm violating the TOS, what are you going to do about it? You volunteered this information, nobody asked you to do it.

You backed LW into a corner, and they had to apply their TOS or in a future court case they couldn't rely on it to protect them. I.e. the prosecutor would say that LW didn't enforce it's TOS, here are reports of TOS violations being ignored, etc....

In many communities children's data is treated differently, and their is a higher moderation and safety requirement for the service provider. You often see this in online services saying you have to be at least 13/16/18 to use this service, it's because they don't want to have to follow the special rules for children.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Wow, this comment got 7 downvotes from 2 year old accounts with no posts or comments and 4 digits in the name........ That is quite the coincidence.

@lwadmin@lemmy.world I suspect the LW accounts above share the same ip address, you might want to look into your logs for astroturfing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com -2 points 2 days ago

??? Sounds toxic for no reason @IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Please help me understand, my above post was written earnestly. I was explaining to a user why they got a outcome they didn't like in the community to adjudicate moderator outcomes. I presented reasoning for my rational in the comment.

How can I explain my interpretation more helpfully?

[–] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'm biased here. I'm still against .world and their tendency to use "legality" as a smokescreen. (Blaming it for banning Luigi content right after he axed that United guy has earned my ire forever.)

However... I'm almost 40, and it was always the rule to never mention your age until it didn't matter. So on the one hand, world loves to use legality to push it's agenda. On the other hand, this is an expected outcome.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago (5 children)

YDI. The instance rules state that minors are not “allowed to use or access the website”. To my knowledge, Lemmy as a whole does not have the infrastructure to age gate content except by users voluntarily filtering out NSFW content themselves. If somebody posts mature 18+ content anywhere on Lemmy and the admins of a server know or at least suspect that an account is ran by a minor who may see that content via federation with that server, the admins may be held legally liable. Implementing an age gated system in the Fediverse that is effective in filtering out mature content is the only way to avert servers being held liable if they know of an account that announces themself (even jokingly) as a minor. It’s not powertripping; it’s covering the instance’s back against an instant and total shutdown. There is a case to be made about hypocrisy and double standards, say with servers that allow and/or endorse piracy, but that is not as dire in the eyes of the law and most people’s morals.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›