InternetTubes

Yeah, I'm really getting the feeling they are just trying to bury it and ignore it. I was having trouble accessing the modlog, but when I was able to, they seemed to have gone through the effort to eliminate a lot of the entries, which included my account purge, ban, and ban reason. They still haven't even bothered to answer the ticket I put up on tickets.mastodon.world, maybe I'll add a screenshot to that later to show the ticket status and the time it has spent as unanswered. No admin has replied to me directly, and the closest I've seen any admin reply on the issue is to criticize the kbin.social instance as reliable because of the criticism they get on them.

The real problem is this is being done in bad faith, and if that's their core drive, then the only thing they'll do in the future is make-up better sounding excuses to cover their asses.

I don't think the admin who's to blame is acting like a dictator, they are acting more like a narcissist with a fragile ego who deceive themselves when they do something wrong. A total spez, if you will, whom people should have no doubts about calling out when they put themselves in position of power.

The problem is, they had no problem deleting months and history of comments and because they aren't willing to recognize what they did wrong or the circumstances that led up to it, it is likely they won't have a problem going full-on psychotic in the future as well, and that is a very toxic foundation upon which the most popular lemmy instance founded upon. Reddit is proof that it won't stop the growth or persistence of the platform, but you will get things like the whole Reddit API debacle. People and developers might better spend their time contributing to other instances.

I don't think this is exactly right, but I was overthinking it. I just saw that the user InternetTubes at lemmy.world got banned on both instances but InternetTubes at kbin.social has only been banned from lemmy.world, and just thought it hinted that an admin manually banned me across both instances the first time and forgot about this user the second time. Yet what's probably happening is that when a user is banned on the instance hosting the account, it gets automatically propagated across instances.

Lemmy's developers run lemmy.ml, and incidentally, I just looked at their modlog and found this:

Banned @InternetTubes
reason: disagreeing with the Terms of Service - don't worry your content is gone

at the same time it appeared on lemmy.world's modlog. ~~At the very least, it seems to hint its the same admin and that they went through the effort to attempt to ban it on both instances.~~

Seriously, this is the least of its problems, but it certainly hints at them: https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/554307/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit

Basically, they don't even follow the examples they set in their Terms of Service and will not only ban but purge your entire comment account on a whim because they didn't like the criticism they said they were open to on a post stating that "users may express their questions, concerns, requests and issues regarding the Terms of Service, and content moderation in Lemmy.World." There's no doubt, they were pretty clear they considered the criticism "disagreeing with the terms of service".

Create your user on another instance and save yourself the surprise of encountering admins who abuse their power on a whim. That can be your entire account history down the drain, and the number of comments or the age of the account won't matter to them.

Yeah, this pretty much wasn't an accident, they just also banned this user, one I had created long before the ban, because of:

reason: Ban evasion

While having no problem doing that, what they haven't done is replied directly or addressed the ticket I sent them, so any benefit of the doubt is pretty much extinguished on my side.

It's clear to me they want to sweep it under the rugs on the hope that controlling the narratives on the most popular lemmy instance works out for them. This was probably what they intended by purging my account all along, thankfully they didn't seem to keep in mind the nuances of the fediverse which has still allowed me to keep evidence and my user account history despite their worst instincts.

Their team is more than one person, so I'm trying to see if I can get a reply from their email in case I can get a more reasonable answer. I have little hope of it, they seem to be a pretty small team (relatively speaking) and I get the impression it was the same person who wrote the Terms of Service.

Funnily enough, another user who was actually being rude in the same thread got banned a few hours earlier but had his comment history as well as the taunts he made in the thread left untouched, showing much more willingness on their part to maintain and even drop down to that level of discourse. I'm not even sure why they are bothering with a Terms of Service if they are just winging it and don't even care about maintaining appearance.

I'll tell you what will make it unsustainable, getting banned "disagreeing" for criticizing and questioning the Terms of Service: https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/554307/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit

I was going to reply, but lemmy.world admins decided to ban my account there suddenly and delete my complete comment history because of some criticism to their terms of conduct (hence why the comment you replied to is empty in some instances)... luckily I noticed as I was about to respond to your reply, saving it in the process when it didn't seem to go through. Without further adeu, and keeping in mind that I am not a legal expert:

That's true for cookies, but I'm not so sure it is true for this. I could be completely wrong, so I've tried searching for more answers, and from what I've gathered, it's not even something that all EU states agree with. According to EDPB Guidelines there is something known as "permissible consent". What you are referring to is discussed in this point:

In order for consent to be freely given, access to services and functionalities must not be made
conditional on the consent of a user to the storing of information, or gaining of access to information
already stored, in the terminal equipment of a user (so called cookie walls)

But when you are talking about ads, you aren't just talking about information stored or access to it, you are talking about a commercial transaction, between the person paying the service to put up the ad so that someone views it, who in essence is paying a part of your subscription. This can still exist even when you've refused targeted marketing, so only permissible incentive (seeing ads that may be more relevant to you) is lost in that regard, meaning you still have a genuine choice. But I'm no expert if that's how the law applies.

It really gets nebulous, and I'm not seeing a clear answer in the EDPB guidelines, but it does say this in one of the examples it gives:

As long as there is a possibility to have the contract performed or the contracted service delivered by this controller without consenting to the other or additional data use in question, this means there is no longer a conditional service. However, both services need to be genuinely equivalent.

The only obligation on behalf of YT might be that the user is aware of and agrees to the contract and the collection of personal data, "accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment" for the purpose of fulfilling contractual obligations.

In short, it's not that cut and dry. It's the reason why you can't access Netflix without paying. It's the reason you have a cheaper Netflix service if you accept ads.

Maybe I'll have to try it out, thanks for the idea.

Well, considering they just decided to ban my account and delete all of my content on their server without even a warning for simply criticizing their terms of conduct, I guess you were right and I was an idiot for defending them.

As a dick who makes wild claims yet provides no evidence of them?