• PP44@lemmy.ml
    205·
    3 years ago

    I guess there is a difference between accepting discussions around a subject with people you disagree with, and accepting someone creating an account specifically designed and named with only one goal : bad faith and low effort posts (yes this is what such a username clearly seems to announce to me).

    I spend much time having great discussions with people both online and afk about vaccines, people who are both pro or anti, and it is sincerely interesting. But seeing such a username is as stupid as seeing someone named “vaccineguaranteeyoursurvival”. Those username are themselves clearly false statement that are meant to create unusefull discussions.

    Hope this ban isn’t getting canceled.

  • Kromonos@fapsi.be
    146·
    3 years ago

    Personally, I already would ban such a username. Then the account was calling out warnings in a community he/she doesn’t moderate that sounded like threats. That just called for a ban. 🤷

    Edit: Just fix a problem with meaning

  • AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
    92·
    3 years ago

    There is actually an ongoing debate among the Lemmy.ml admins on how antivaxx should be handled. Nutomic probably didn’t remove this, but another admin did. Or, as others have pointed out, it was removed for spam and trolling.

    • restoreaccount@lemmy.mlOP
      815·
      3 years ago

      What debate? Whether people should be informed in their medical choices or not. Fucking ass holes.

      • snek_boi@lemmy.ml
        4·
        3 years ago

        What debate? Whether people should be informed in their medical choices or not. Fucking ass holes.

        I’m sure you wrote this with the intention to make a point about the need for free speech to achieve informed consent. Yet, based on your wording, you’re also making the opposite case (the case in which people make medical choices with informed consent, without the interference of mass disinformation or science denialism).

        lol

  • SalamanderA
    61·
    3 years ago

    If people get banned for filling the rules admins make why should anyone trust this platform?

    I don’t have to because I run my own instance. That’s the point of lemmy!

    Admittedly my instance is quite empty, so if they were to disable federation between mine and lemmy.ml it would be very quiet… But the current state is not what is important to me, what is important to me is the goal that the project is working towards. I am here because I think building a de-centralized reddit is a very good idea.

  • Jesse@lemmy.ml
    4·
    3 years ago

    Can you provide a link to where they said there is no vaccine policy? For completeness?

  • Slatlun@lemmy.ml
    53·
    3 years ago

    Read it again without the word ‘anti-vaxx’ and see if you agree with the ban under the site rules. Now imagine it said ‘trolling and weightloss pill spammer.’ Would you be upset because there is no rule against that specific type of spammer?

    • restoreaccount@lemmy.mlOP
      45·
      3 years ago

      Except that account had zero trolling behavior on it. Is that how this site works? If you don’t like someones opinion you call them a troll and SITE WIDE ban them? Seems like a pretty lame excuse to me.

      • sheesh@lemmy.ml
        133·
        3 years ago

        No trolling? The username is ‘vaxedpeopledie’… To me the way vaccinated is written (with one ‘x’ or more) is already unsettling enough (if not trolling). But jokes aside - who has a username like this without the intent to stir up controversy?

        Edit: Also, I trust this platform because people get banned (i.e., moderation works).

        • restoreaccount@lemmy.mlOP
          45·
          3 years ago

          Controversy isn’t trolling. Is controversy against site rules? Who cares how a word is spelled?

          If people get banned for posting news articles showing the dangers of vaccines then put that in the rules and stop hiding behind the world troll or controversy.

          Also you can moderate individual communities however you want but a site wide ban should be when someone breaks a site wide rule. No?

          • sheesh@lemmy.ml
            43·
            3 years ago

            Everyone who reads cares about spelling. It has to do with readability. I know that most mainstream click-bait article headline authors do not care. They do not need to, since their message is typically trivial. If you read more complicated texts it becomes obvious why words cannot be spelled differently in every paragraph. (Also, it seems to be a Usonian problem…) Controversy is not the issue. It can arise. The problem is when posts are made with intent of controversy (a.k.a “user engagement”). In a scientific discussion, controvery disappears with increasing evidence (no need to argue when the facts are clear). Also, ban the trolls from everything (never feed them!).

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        8·
        3 years ago

        spreading misinformation is obnoxious, and you defending such behavior is no better.

        appropriately, antivaxxers won’t live long enough to be a permanent nuisance for society.

      • sexy_peach@feddit.de
        54·
        3 years ago

        why don’t you use a free speech website like gab? Because they are all crazy shitholes that aren’t actually free speech? lmao it’s sad tbh

      • Slatlun@lemmy.ml
        32·
        3 years ago

        I can’t see the account activity and it doesn’t make any sense to ask for proof of no trolling behavior. I will assume you are correct that there was no trolling. Was that your account?

        I do know that mods have to make calls like that all of the time and I haven’t seen anything to make me think that ours aren’t working in good faith. I don’t always agree with decisions that are made, but the job is difficult and voluntary.

        Even better, the mods on this instance don’t have to power to stop a person from interacting on Lemmy by joining another instance or even creating their own. We are free and encouraged to find a place that welcomes us.