this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
704 points (91.3% liked)

/0 Governance

308 readers
606 users here now

A community for discussion and democratic decision making in the Divisions by zero.

Anyone with voting rights can open a governance thread and initiate a vote or a discussion. There's no special keywords you must be aware of before you open a thread, but there are some. here's the governance thread manual.

Answers

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

We, the admin team, decry all forms of settler-colonialism, and we recognize that Zionism is a pro-settler-colonialist position.

Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.

Please upvote for agree, downvote for disagree.

Note: we only count votes by instance members of dbzer0 and anarchist.nexus, plus a few vouched-for external users.


Hi mateys, I've kept things simple in the above text, for brevity, but in fact it took the admin team quite a while to get to this stage. We have discussed the policy change extensively, and a variety of different perspectives emerged. I will attempt to sum them up below as best I can:

  • The "this isn't that complicated" school of thought goes something like this: If someone is consistently posting comments that mirror Hasbara talking points (e.g. justifying the genocide in Gaza, consistently painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as the victim), then they should be instance banned. It's just not acceptable for Zionists to be allowed on our instances.

  • The "slippery slope" / "purity test" school of thought is that banning people for having an "unpopular" political opinion would potentially mean banning half the fediverse, if more and more of these policies were enacted over time. To attempt to mitigate this we are keeping the scope of this rule as narrow as possible, and I also don't think many of our users will be affected. Also, we typically don't have frequent policy changes, and I have no reason to expect that to change moving forward.

  • Another important discussion point was "how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not?" We can't always be 100% sure of someone's true intentions, we can only go on what they have posted and that is subject to interpretation. I don't feel there is an easy answer to this one, except to say that we would have to be pretty certain before issuing a perma-ban.

  • The "geopolitics don't matter" school of thought is that trying to be on the "correct" side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don't bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.

Please add your comments below if you want to provide your own thoughts on the topic, or have any questions.

expiry: 7

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 1 day ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago) (1 children)

Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591 Early Bird: a parrot, orangered colors Jolly Roger: an icon of pirate jolly roger skull wearing a hat, in orange-red, black and white colors A book with a loaf of bread in the cover  in orange-red, black and white colors Deck Hand: An icon of anchor crossed with two staves in orange-red, black and white colors First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color

This is a simple majority vote. The current tally is as follows:

  • For: First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color (5), Vouched: a minimalist compass icon. Orangered color (3), MVP: a star icon, in orange-red, black and white colors (1), Threadiverse Enjoyer: An icon of a doubloon with a black hole in the center in orange-red, black and white colors (1), Deck Hand: An icon of anchor crossed with two staves in orange-red, black and white colors (2), Powder Monkey: An icon of powder barrel in orange-red, black and white colors (2)
  • Against: Threadiverse Enjoyer: An icon of a doubloon with a black hole in the center in orange-red, black and white colors First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color
  • Local Community: +2.1
  • Outsider sentiment: Supportive
  • Total: +14.1
  • Percentage: 89.00%

This vote will complete in 1 days


Reminder that this is a pilot process and results of voting are not set in stone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I want to focus on the structure of the proposal rather than on defending Israeli state policy, which I oppose in many respects.

As written, the proposal does not clearly define Zionism so much as treat a particular interpretation of it as self-evident, namely that Zionism is inherently a form of settler colonialism. That is a position many people hold, but it is also a contested one, and the policy depends on that premise without unpacking it.

If the core concern is behavior such as genocide denial, dehumanization of Palestinians, or the repetition of propaganda talking points, those are concrete harms and seem like appropriate moderation targets on their own. Framing the rule around an ideological label instead of specific conduct risks conflating belief, state policy, and online behavior, which are not always the same thing even when they overlap.

I also share some of the concern about how “pro-Zionist” would be determined in practice. When enforcement depends on interpreting intent or identity rather than observable actions, it increases the risk of inconsistency and misclassification, even with good faith moderation.

I am not arguing against taking a clear moral stance in support of Palestinians. I am suggesting that the policy would be stronger, clearer, and easier to defend if it focused explicitly on the behaviors and arguments that cause harm, rather than relying on a broad and disputed definition of Zionism to do that work.

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 55 minutes ago (2 children)
[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 43 minutes ago (1 children)

Someone who supports the zionist entity.

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 40 minutes ago (1 children)

Ah cool what’s that and what does support for it look like?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 34 minutes ago (1 children)

On lemmy? Arguing for its continued existence, in particular its supposed right to attack palestinians (which gets reframed as "defense"). Flattening the conflict as if both sides are to blame. Thinking that Pissrael should continue to occupy some amount of Palestinian land. "Won't someone consider the occupiers" handwringing.

Really anything short of "Death to Pissrael" should be considered zionist.

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 12 minutes ago

So saying that Israel has a right to exist means one is a Zionist and should therefore be banned?

Everybody agrees?

[–] duncan_bayne@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

Having a definition of Zionist would probably help?

I think Israel is committing war crimes in Palestine, Netenyahu should be tried by the ICC, and that what is happening in Palestine at present is in fact genocide.

But also, I think Israel should contiue to exist, and should - given the crimes committed against their citizens by Hamas - be entitled to demand that Hamas play no part in governance of a future Palestinian state.

Uncertain whether that counts as a zionist position, or not.

[–] BoJackHorseman@lemmy.world 2 points 47 minutes ago

Given all these crimes committed by IDF, even before 1948, the IDF should no longer exist.

Who is Hamas is not defined and Zionists have used the Hamas excuse to bomb all of Gaza and kill 70,000 people, half of whom are children under 18.

So basically when Zionists say they want to kill Hamas, it's code word for saying they want to kill every Palestinian.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago)

I think Israel should contiue to exist, and should - given the crimes committed against their citizens by Hamas - be entitled to demand that Hamas play no part in governance of a future Palestinian state.

This does not seem like a reasonable stance to me. There is no peaceful Israel, and zionism is about greed not need. Zionists dont want peace, and zionism is a choice, not an ethnicity. Zionists dont see Palestinians or any other non-jewish person as worthy of basic human rights, as evidenced by their refusal to sign the UN declaration of universal human rights, and their multi-tiered justice system, and their adoption of Israeli basic laws that spell out Jewish supremacy and non-jewish lack of citizenship in lands they control. Their racist supremacy not just an idea, its enshrined in their law, and practiced in their state sponsored, and wildly publicly supported actions.

To support Israel as you do is to support that legally enshrined apartheid, and also who they are now (genociders) and what we all know they will continue to do. They will not change because they fundamentally disagree with the idea of ever changing. Jewish people have another homeland they could have chosen if they really need to rule themselves (a tenuous idea and not a need backed up by facts) called the jewish Autonomous Oblast. Or they are also perfectly safe in the US, or countless countries across the world. There was never a need for a homeland to be in the middle east which was already populated-- just a desire. There was no need for the nakba, which was ethnic cleansing, murder, and terrorism-- nor has zionism admitted that was wrong, or that they will ever make ammends. Balfour stipulated that Jewish settlers would respect the local population and live sperately form them, and zionists unilaterally destroyed that idea with the nakba. There is no redeeming zionism and it is an ongoing crime spree with massive numbers of real victims.

And why should Israel be "entitled" to "demand" a say (your words) in the governance of the Palestinian people they have so brutalized? Palestinians are not your people to make demands of. They are not your subjects or citizens. Your demand is backed by murderous force and war crimes, exercised daily. You display the same desire for brutal reinforcement of your own views that the rest of the zionists do. You should be on your knees begging for forgiveness and reconciliation, not making "demands" that you feel "entitled" to, after innocent Palestinians have suffered a genocide and terrorism at zionist hands. -- terrorism which you still openly support, despite your professing to the contrary in your statement.

I think your support for zionisms colonizalism and murder -- and your demand to dictate the future of Palestinian governance should disqualify you from remaining on Lemmy, and I find your stance to be appalling and grossly immoral. You cant seperate zionism from terrorism and colonizalism, no matter how well spoken you are. And your demand to dictate the governance of palestine is concrete proof of your not belonging here.

[–] lefthandeddude@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

It is technically Zionism. If you are anti-Zionist, at this point in time, you think Israel should not exist. If you are a Zionist, you think Israel should exist.

Incidentally, I have similar views as yours regarding the ICC and war crimes, and was called "horrible" and "proud" and "shit" among other things.

I'm deleting my account tomorrow. I don't know if I would be banned for my views, but I don't feel welcome here. It feels like if I am against war crimes and want ICC prosecutions, but am not actively advocating for Israel to be destroyed, it's not enough to be here... or even if it were enough, enough people said terrible things to me that I really don't want to be a part of this community anymore.

[–] duncan_bayne@lemmy.world -1 points 58 minutes ago

I wouldn't delete, if I were you. Extremists on both sides - those who would excuse Israel's war crimes, and those would excuse Hamas' atrocities - will certainly insult and belittle you. But they're a vocal minority.

[–] Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus 11 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

zionism and anarchism are mutually exclusive idealogies. you cannot believe in solidarity for all mankind and also support an ethnocutural supremacist movement.

I support banning zionists from dbzer0 to match them being banned on Anarchist Nexus.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 6 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Loving y'all's instance more and more by the day.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Ban the motherfuckers, I'm tired of seeing Zios post their apologia and propaganda all over the internet anyways. People hand wringing about it in the comments need to shut the fuck up and read the god damn code of conduct.

One thing I'll say is that this'll probably put more load on the admins, so I hope y'all have factored that in. It'll be well worth the effort in my opinion, both to protect our m@teys (did that ever take off?) at large as well as our Muslim, Arab, and Levantine friends.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Was there a specific incident(s) that led to this course of action?

[–] Luminous5481@anarchist.nexus 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

dataprolet was brought up in the matrix chat the other day, and it was decided somebody should make a gov post about whether or not someone like them should be associated with the rest of us.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 41 minutes ago* (last edited 40 minutes ago) (1 children)

Lmaaoo so it was my post in slop about dataprolet that triggered this whole thing?

[–] oculi@anarchist.nexus 2 points 9 minutes ago (1 children)

Yes lol, someone asked about why they weren't banned on matrix (because of your post) and the ensuing argument ultimately lead to creating this vote

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 minutes ago

and people say that posting slop is not praxis blobcat, coffee

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›