• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    15·
    2 months ago

    I just checked with the admin in question. Apparently this 3 day ban is for posting an image of a skinned dog on a bbq in a vegan community.

    • NaevaTheRat [she/her]@vegantheoryclub.orgOPEnglish
      92·
      2 months ago

      It’s a photograph of a PETA protest posted to vegancirclejerk which endorses this sort of protest.

      The image specifically has the text “vegan” in it, and the dog is a prop.

      Given this instance endorses animal abuse for the purpose of food, what are the grounds for the ban? The vcj admin can remove the post if they feel it goes against the community (it doesn’t), people post bodyparts of animals to this instance all the time.

      If footage of vegan protests is against the rules, that should be made explicit.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        9·
        2 months ago

        I understand why you posted it, and I understand why they banned it. That said, I personally don’t I agree with this admin action since this was clearly a prop and nothing more gruesome than animals on a skewer than one sees constantly in various countries during bbq days, I think this kind of moderation should be left to those community mods which are better suited to know if it fits their community. That said, I can also understand why that mod felt that this sort of gore was too much.

        I think this was an BPR overreach. I’ll have to have a talk between admins and our community to see if this sort of thing is how we should handle it. Thanks for bringing it up.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
            12·
            2 months ago

            I’m not sure this is reaction against veganism, rather than a kneejerk reaction to gore or otherwise bad taste posts. Let’s not be uncharitable here. I’ll try to get this sorted with a community mandate.

            • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caEnglish
              3·
              2 months ago

              I understand Naeva’s feelings because she was censored before by Lemmy World admins however you’re doing a good job sorting out the situation.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        6·
        2 months ago

        apparently so. I suspect what happens is that the admin can only ban people for their own instance, so our instance will treat this user as banned, even if they can otherwise post. If it’s out own user, that instance won’t be able to see their posts in their community, but if it’s a user from another instance, I suspect that only our instance user’s won’t see their posts in that community.

        Strange that it works this way (don’t blame me, I didn’t build this software) but I guess this has some uses.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
            9·
            2 months ago

            honestly, we really just need a separation between “report to mod” and “report to mod & admins” or smt.

            • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              2·
              2 months ago

              Also need an option to report to only admins, since mods which are abusive can just dismiss every report. Possibly even abuse the reporter. It happened to me earlier when someone created a community to harass me and pinged me on every post.

              Being able to bypass mods is crucial in situations like that.

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    8·
    2 months ago

    Talked to the admin, and ban has been lifted (it was only a 3-day ban). We will probably keep out of 3rd party community mod decisions in the future unless they clearly violate our own instance rules.

    Remember that reports from people also come to the admins by default so it forces us to make a decision. Ignore the user who reported it, or act in some way. A bit like a trolley problem so to speak, it kinda removes the option for us to “do nothing”. And those decisions are not always clear based on the culture of every community.

    Anyway, I feel like this would be a good topic about which to open a /0 thread.