i expected blahaj.zone to have more bans since as far as i know its supposed to be a safe place and less tolerant of transphobia (along with there being no downvotes to bury hateful comments and posts)
Fediverse
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
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general 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)
dbzer0 literally has a community aimed at calling out power tripping mods, and instance admins regularly comment there to call out power tripping mods.
I've never have been worried by being banned there by just normal posting.
As they have already told you. This does not take into account the amount of harassment that some instances and communities have to endure.
I don't think this is terribly meaningful. Do you take into account unmoderated communities? Some communities and mods are also more ban happy than others, so one instance can have communities that very rarely ban and ones that ban a lot, and how big those communities are will also vary.
A more meaningful analysis would try to measure the impact of ban-happy communities by adjusting for their size/activity or would compare individual communities.
Edit: Some communities or mods also get harassed a lot and therefore need to be more ban happy (like womens stuff), but I don't think accounting for that would be within the scope of what you're looking at, but it's worth being aware of.
Well it makes complete sense. ML, dbzero and the furries are instances that committed to upholding their code of conducts which moderates and bans people for antisocial behaviors like transphobia and racism for example, while instances like world and sjw are known to rarely if ever ban or moderate people for things like that to the point instances like beehaw had to defederate from them so they wouldnt get swarn by their unmoderated users
On world big communities you can get your comment removed for the word stupid but are allowing someone to say most palestinians was not forced to leave during the nekba or claim that israel never target civilians despite all the proofs saying otherwise
its so funny how people complained about blahaj, the trans instance yet they dont ban very high at all, i suspect its alot of transphobic comments being directed towards the instance that are getting people banned.
blahaj is up there likely due to signicant transphobia too.
if you look at the modlog of every "blahaj is an authoritarian instance" user you will find they either keep misgendering people, talked over trans people and refused to be corrected or did things like denouncing neopronouns everytime
I am banned from a bunch of blahaj because I said that they were as bad as ml once. Never made any transphobic comments (nor am I, for the record).
I was not surprised to see them so high up.
Yeah from memory most of our instance bans are gatekeeping and transphobia (and spam) which are the things we are the strictest on. We also notice that many transphobes are also bigoted or inflammatory in other ways as well, which makes sense as you wouldn't notice someone with bigoted views unless they were very willing to voice those views.
Is this permanent bans and/or temporary bans?
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.


