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.

Oh.

I think you and me would get along great if we met in person.

But I hate your web personality, friend. At least so far.

I’m choosing to just reply to this comment to you in this particular thread, because I’m a bit exhausted after talking to this linkerbaan fella in another thread. But I think you and I could really see eye to eye on a bunch of things, assuming I’m not mixing you up with somebody else.

I like your moxie, if you’ll excuse any condescension you may detect (it’s not there, I promise).

But this shit is precisely why I wanna have a good internet space for legit debate. I sincerely hope I can find a spot that offers an open forum for some good faith political debate that isn’t moderated based on butt-hurt-ed-ness.

I had a conversation with the mod who deleted my comments for being uncivil. A troll reported me being an asshole to him, as he trolled. If you look at the deleted thread, you can see their deleted comments.

it’s not my proudest moment, but I firmly believe that assholes should he confronted by assholes, and I took it upon myself in that moment.

Aside from that single interaction, I have abided by the rules of the forum and been polite, within reason. But I have, without remorse, questioned bullshit and disinformation.

So are you just generally an asshole, or just right now?

Yes the visit it has nothing to do with all of the NYT, AP, Guardian Reuters and other propaganda repurts being fully debunked and israel needing new ammunition to keep the rape lies alive

What? this doesn’t seem like a statement that is relevant to our conversation, which is about whether sexual violence occurred on October 7th.

It is a sad state of affairs that someone with a degree in legalise is fully unable to read and comprehend anything said in reports. You should consider asking your university for a refund.

lol, I’ll send a letter and see. I’d love for you to illustrate where my reading comprehension is bad, though. I just keep on waiting for you to prove your points, I guess.

Yikes, man. It’s absolutely unreal to me that you are just blanket denying that there is any possibility that sexual violence occurred on a day where 1,200 people were murdered and thousands more injured by a decentralized group of combatants, many of whom don’t believe that Israelis are real people. It does not do any credit to your argument that you are so vehemently opposed to accepting the possibility members of an armed group that perpetrated horrific acts against unarmed civilians across a wide period of time and space may have also raped people.

I watched the video. Seriously, where the fuck does it say anything about rapes not happening? Honestly, you keep saying this thing, and presenting evidence, but literally nothing you are showing me says what you’re saying it says. Every single source you have posted says that that there is evidence of sex crimes. Every single one, including that video. Just saying a source proves your point doesn’t mean that the source, yanno, proves your point.

I understand your point, but when a group of ideologues has de facto control over one of/some of the largest entities on a social media platform, and bans people for ideology without warning, explanation, or recourse, this amounts to centralized control, or at the very least undue influence.

For me personally, it wouldn’t be a big issue if .ml made its bend and moderation practices clear, because I could have avoided the headache when I was first using lemmy. I wouldn’t choose to engage with a forum that has “no critique of any country that calls itself Communist is allowed, anywhere, ever, for any reason, or we will bar you from participating in all communities on this platform” and I’m sure a lot of others feel the same way. What’s more, I bet the admin of .ml know that, too, and keep these practices opaque because they are interested in new users.

Why don’t .ml users retreat to hexbear or lemmygrad, if making the moderation practices on one of the largest instances fair is so odious?

But what if I don’t want to live in my own echo chamber, nor do I want to be subjected to another echo chamber within which I can’t participate? Having fair moderation practices and not banning people from participating in completely unrelated subs doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

In my view this being completely about .world not liking .ml politics is a straw man. This is about decorum and applying moderation practices equally, without bias, and avoiding punitive bans in unrelated communities.

To clarify, since this topic is something that I have experienced quite a lot over my two months here, now: I do not have any problem whatsoever with tankie/communist/leftist politics. I also don’t have a problem with people discussing them.

What I do have a problem with is:

• ad hom attacks calling me a “lib” when I question whether authoritarianism on the left is really much better than authoritarianism on the right
• unequal moderation, ie. being banned/having comments deleted for giving the same bitchy energy I receive over the course of a debate, without the same enforcement of the other user
• having a long conversation, in good faith, about politics, media, and disinformation, including providing sources and reading sources in return, with mods and then finding the entire thread deleted because I said something critical of China, or insisted on alternative, nongovernmental sources for news
• having these activities result in bans from subs that I have never commented in, and being unable to appeal or understand them

And I think it’s ok to think that these practices are inherently bad for a social media platform, and working with others to advocate against those practices.

Yes you are right it repeats the “reasonable grounds” thing over and over and then undoes it by saying “lol we don’t actually have an investigative mandate and this report cannot draw conclusions. Our witnesses and evidence and not mentioned trust me bro but also you can’t trust me.

Doesn’t say they can’t draw conclusions, only that the conclusions they draw do not have the same legal weight as other possible legal instruments. You’re also conflating their mandate and the evidence they collected; they don’t have a mandate sufficient to complete the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the evidence they did collect. Which says, in no uncertain terms, that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that sexual violence occurred. Let me be clear, again: NONE OF THAT MEANS THE UN HAS FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE OF RAPE ON OCTOBER 7TH.

Very contradictory. You’d almost think that she is writing propaganda for israel here. And was specifically invited by israel to write propaganda.

I’m sure Israel does want these crimes to be exposed. I’m also sure that the present government of Israel is a bad actor and is doing everything it can to subvert any critique against itself, while maximizing messaging critical of Hamas (and also minimizing any reports of its crimes).

Tell me again, why is israel blocking the actual UN investigation team that wants to investigate?

Because the government of Israel sucks, and any intensive investigation would certainly recover even more evidence of the various war crimes it has committed, which obviously amount to a lot more death and destruction than anything that happened on October 7th.

Consider reading the Finkelstein post again if you’re having trouble with the deceiving legalise from Pattens report.

Thanks, I have an advanced degree in international affairs, so I was trained by actual subject matter experts on how this stuff works. Dr. Finkelstein is not an expert in international law, which is why some of his critiques fall short, in my view, and explains why you don’t seem to understand that just because a team does not enjoy a robust enough mandate that doesn’t mean they don’t collect evidence. It just means they don’t have the proper mandate to collect all the evidence, and certainly not sufficient authority to make conclusions beyond certain evidentiary standards.

I’d also remind you that the UN is an intergovernmental organization, and with a few very notable exceptions, no UN entity can operate outside the restrictions that a host country places on it.

Because a wider, better resourced, and long term investigation would be better equipped to collect and analyze evidence? Because a better structured and mandated team would likely have more access, credibility, and ability to undertake that assignment? Because, as the report discusses, it often takes years or decades for crimes committed during armed conflict to come to their conclusion, for myriad of reasons?

Among other statements, here’s what the actual UN report actually said about just this: “As in other conflict-affected contexts, there remains a significant likelihood that the findings of the mission team, in terms of verified violations, only partially reflect the crimes actually committed. A more comprehensive assessment of the occurrence of conflict-related sexual violence in the context of the 7 October attacks would require a fully-fledged investigation by competent bodies with adequate time and capacity.” (Page 15, section C, subsection 56).

Over and over again this report says that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred” on that day, in various settings. I’m not sure why you think that this amounts to “rape definitely did not happen.”

And, since your counterargument rests on the idea that Pramilla Patten is just “a woman,” I think you should think about who and what she is: a legal expert, practicing lawyer, and judge who has been investigating gender-based violence for more than 20 years, and specifically sexual violence in conflict settings since 2017.

What? How does that say anything about what did or did not happen? This is about the mandate of the team, and, as I have been saying, means that there is more investigation needed. Please, highlight for me where the UN says that there is no evidence of rape. I think in this case it might be you who struggles with some of the nuances of legalese.

Over and over again, it says that there “are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered.”

None of this amounts to “there is no evidence of rape.” What this means is that there needs to be more, sustained and explicitly mandated investigation before legal action should take place. This concept, I think, is called due process.

I’ve read the report, and it states over and over again that there is credible evidence of assaults, and stipulates how it went about its business.

I’m working through Dr. Finkelstein’s arguments. All I can see he does is cast doubt on the evidence that was collected and the mission’s mandate. None of this amounts to “there is no evidence that there was any rape.” It just means that there is evidence for more investigation.

That Israel has not provided evidence? Maybe, but irrelevant to our conversation.

The UN report itself outlines how sexual violence has occurred in this conflict, right from the start.

The AP has been targeted by Israel for its coverage of the conflict.

In that article they interview the people who initially reported some of these cases of rape, and illustrate how and why they were wrong. It doesn’t say anywhere that there are no other erroneous reports of rape.

The UN report, which I’ve linked elsewhere, illustrates the evidence and methodology, and makes the convincing argument that sexual assault likely occurred in the context of Oct 7. It’s in plain English.

So you did not read anything I’ve sent you?

I’ve edited my previous comment, and included the actual UN report.

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12016983

That’s my comment, where I replied to you, with a source from the United Nations. I’ll highlight the relevant… title of the page… for you:

“Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council”

I also included an APNews article about this very topic, and addresses the ways that disinformation regarding sexual violence in this conflict about. Here’s the headline of that article:

“How 2 debunked accounts of sexual violence on Oct. 7 fueled a global dispute over Israel-Hamas war”

Edit: here is the actual UN report: https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/report/mission-report-official-visit-of-the-office-of-the-srsg-svc-to-israel-and-the-occupied-west-bank-29-january-14-february-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf

I’m not sure what you debunked, but based on our short interaction here you seem to deny that there is any evidence of sexual assault. Which is not true: there’s plenty of evidence, which I have you in another of my responses.

What is true is that some of the reports of rape were untrue. Read the AP news article I linked, where they interview some of the people who actually made those initial reports and reconsidered them.

I think it’s ok to acknowledge that both Hamas and the Israeli government have committed atrocities, and keep doing it. I can condemn both.

Getting back to the point of the OP here, though: there are plenty of examples of Israel being criticized, that have survived moderation.

I don’t know that I agree with the decision to ban ozma, but it does seem like it was at least openly discussed, and it doesn’t appear as if he was also banned from completely unrelated subs for his actions.

Which, again, is a huge crux of the OP that you seem to be avoiding.

Yeah, I figured that out after a little bit of interaction, but I prefer to give the other the benefit of the doubt when i start any conversation.

I think that comment removal was out of line, but I don’t think many comments should be removed at all. However it doesn’t look as if you have been banned from any other subs across .world, have you? That’s a large part of the discussion happening here.

I just read the announcement about his ban. It’s strange I couldn’t find it in the mod logs when I looked. However, their explanations are pretty well articulated, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make a user who overwhelms a forum with a clear agenda take a break.