this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
121 points (83.1% liked)

Fediverse

41866 readers
550 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I did some analysis of the modlog and found this:

V8lPrxY1qxcISLe.png

Ok, bigger instances ban more often. Not surprising, because they have more communities and more users and more trouble. But hang on, dbzer0 isn't a very big instance. What happens if we do a ratio of bans vs number of users?

vyfUNYTrX9pHQeR.png

Ok, so lemmy.ml, dbzer0 and pawb are issue an outsized amount of bans for the number of users they have... But surely the number of communities the instance hosts is going to mean they have to ban more? Bans are used to moderate communities, not just to shield their user-base from the outside. Let's look at the number of bans per community hosted:

Yrc7TofOr88SeGt.png

Seems like dbzer0 really loves to ban. Even more than the marxists and the furries! What is it about dbzer0 that makes them such prolific banners?

Raw-ish numbers and calculations are in this spreadsheet if anyone wants to make their own charts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Objection@lemmy.ml 21 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't really see a problem with an instance banning large numbers of users.

The ability to make exclusive spaces is part of the fediverse's design. Suppose a queer space kept getting flooded with homophobic users, or a Muslim space got a bunch of people shitting on their religion, or something like that. Naturally, such spaces would have a higher number of bans. That doesn't necessarily show an "echo chamber" especially since users of such communities may be federated with other communities. People complain about censorship on .ml creating an "echo chamber" but half the time I'm arguing or discussing things on other turfs like .world.

The idea that those sorts of enclaves or exclusive spaces shouldn't exist, as is implied with the framing here, is to impose what us evil, dastardly "authoritarians" sometimes call "the tyranny of structurelessness." No one would have a space to discuss things outside of the most prominent, hegemonic view, which would more easily sideline and overwhelm other perspectives.

As an example, I once frequented an utter cesspool on Reddit called r/CapitalismVSocialism, which was created and promoted by An-caps and where that perspective was prominent (though not exclusive). I found it was virtually impossible to have a discussion with anyone about anything, because even if you weren't talking to an An-cap, they were always there waiting to latch on to some turn of phrase and use it against you, and everyone was too preoccupied with countering their nonsense to reach any kind of high-level discussion. I eventually got fed up with that and found that my beliefs were more challenged by going to explicitly leftist spaces because we had shared assumptions and were speaking the same language, and didn't feel the need to be as defensive. I was never going to be convinced of anything by the An-caps and all talking to them accomplished was pissing me off.

The fediverse's design is actually quite brilliant, because you can have a space to discuss things substantively among like-minded people while at the same time interacting with other groups.

Is it even an instance banning users or comms on an instance? Like take out the genai comm bans and see what remains?