Owning his own instance would probably work better for him, so removing himself from the communities where he was the sole contributor seems like a good decision.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
136 points (98.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1513 readers
9 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:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
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.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Probably a net positive for the threadiverse that he won't be moderating communities. He seemed to take it way too seriously.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"If there is anyone else in the world who might be able to keep me in check if I do something unreasonable, I can't handle that. I need to be the ultimate authority over the little hapless users in my domain, period, end of story."
(Edit: ~~Jesus Christ man. I know nothing about this guy other than downvotegate, but he sounds like a nimrod.~~ IDK, I take it back, he seems fine. I talked with him and he just has strong feelings about this one issue and he's making a point. I still think the way he's trying to make the point is going to have trouble getting received, in the way he's doing it, but whatever, he seems well intentioned, I don't think he is any sort of bad way about it having heard him out on it.)
I keep saying: The whole moderation model where it is moderators setting up a mandatory override over content within "their place," and any users who don't like it are forced to beg for change or complain about the unfairness to others, is simply inferior to the model where it is users deciding which moderators they want to allow to override their content.
It's a hard pill as a mod but you have to swallow it. People are going to do things you don't like and say things you don't like. You have to be okay with that. You will not get an echochamber of people who agree with you 100%. The choice is you can either become okay with that and apply some rules that are reasonable - or you can remove everything you disagree with pushing people away.
Look at me. I run a few communities here (and a few elsewhere), but one of them here is !taylorswift@poptalk.scrubbles.tech . I personally am a swiftie and there are dozens of us here on the fediverse. That being said, if I banned anyone for simply downvoting a post or saying something negative about her then I'd have to defederate every instance there is. Instead, I can let my own users do that for me and let people get downvoted to hell in the community, and sometimes out of those bad comments comes some real good discussion. If anything actually comes out that is against the rules, like true hate or bigotry or personal attacks then sure thing I'll swoop in and remove it, but even for a Swiftie community in the least likely space, that happens extremely infrequently.
To be honest I feel like in your case it would be acce to ban systematic downvoters
I do, I have some math that determines how much they downvote vs upvote. I allow downvotes, but if you don't provide anything positive to the community then I ban them from it.
Do users come in and downvote stuff there because its about Taylor Swift?
It's mostly All browsers who see her and immediately hit the downvote button.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I keep saying: The whole moderation model where it is moderators setting up a mandatory override over content within “their place,” and any users who don’t like it are forced to beg for change or complain about the unfairness to others, is simply inferior to the model where it is users deciding which moderators they want to allow to override their content.
What model would you be calling for? How would this work in practice?
Bluesky does it by letting people (or automated systems) publish lists of content and users that that publisher is recommending that people block, and then part of your user config is enabling which of those sources you want to apply to your own feed.
I don't really know how you could apply that to Lemmy since the model is just different. Mostly I am just talking philosophy and stuff that irritates me about Lemmy's model. A simplistic approach though could be just to have each user settings include a "mod ignore" list or something alongside the blocks and etc, the list of moderators whose comment deletion and user ban settings you don't want to respect. So you can still see and interact with content that comes from any users those specific mods have attempted to block.
It would be a little bit messy, it might be better to take a step back and reengineer things to be more user-centric instead of that, but that would be compatible with existing stuff, just easy harm reduction when specific mods are widely recognized by the community to be bums. I also think just the threat of it (and the corresponding loss of credibility and control for the mod) would be a useful check on people who currently feel that lack of credibility in the community means literally nothing to them, and don't bother to try to maintain it.
(Hey @jordanlund@lemmy.world -- remember a week ago when people were talking about your moderation on LW and asked you this and this, and then you just fell silent and still like a frozen bunny waiting for the predator to leave, instead of addressing those reasonable questions?)
Just focusing on one thing specifically here: Your grievance here (and others grievances with him) aren't really with Jordan at this point, but with the inability or unwillingness of lemmy.world to act. Jordan's behaviour and positions are well known. Him against the world. He won't budge. It really is up to lemmy.world now.
In theory, lemmy/piefed etc systems are far better for mod accountability on this score because instance owners and admins are far closer to the community than reddit admins. I can tell you also that atomicpoet, for instance, making this decision didn't come out of a vacuum on this point.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(51 replies)
Even if the mod was too intense, it's sad to see communities go when they have a following. Can they be revived with their communities intact to continue on under new leadership?
None of them had a large following. The one potential exception could be !fediversenews@piefed.social, but it wasn't that active since @Sunshine@piefed.ca switched to !fediverse@piefed.social
load more comments
(7 replies)
Bro crashed out
Bro!
Talk about taking your toys and going home.
The reason is simple: building on a server where I don’t have final control carries risk, and I don’t want to keep investing in spaces that could be removed from me at any moment.
I don't like this look AP, just say you didn't like being called out and leave it at that not go down this authoritarian path, makes you look even stranger in my eyes bro.
Okay, bye Felicia.
This is one thing that gives me less hope about the fediverse. If a community gets large and this happens, I feel they fracture when they move.
He wasn't moderating any large communities.
The difference here is that if this was Reddit, an out-of-control community moderator would be untouchable and they'd have a monopoly on the community name. This doesn't happen on the Fediverse.
If a community gets large and this happens, I feel they fracture when they move.
They don't, what fractures communities is having similar communities active at the same time.
!television@piefed.social is the only single active community about television, it is much more active than !movies@piefed.social as !movies@lemmy.world is still open, giving https://lawsofux.com/choice-overload/ to posters, commenters and subscribers
load more comments
(1 replies)
That happens on centralized social media too though
Bro
view more: next ›