Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 weeks agoThat is some total whackjob reasoning.
A community means EXCLUDING people who don’t share a interest.
The actual fuck? This is the dumbest take I’ve seen in a while (including all the coverage of the Charlie Kirk shooting), and they try to justify it as being a rephrasing of “A community is for people who share an interest”?
This is just an unhinged way of justifying isolationism and silencing critics. It reads like it was written by the mods of r/conservative. Go touch some fuckin’ grass, dude.
Not speaking to the particular community in the OP, but this can be valid in non-political contexts. If I made a metal music community, and an account came in every day to downvote every post because they don't like metal - would I be justified in banning them for that?
Would it be fair minded to downvote like that?
Sure but that’s not what’s happening. The criticism isn’t for banning sock puppets or banning accounts for brigading, it’s for banning accounts that downvote “on-topic posts”, evidently even a single time. What you’re describing and what the mod in question is doing are distinct behaviors, as is what you’re describing and the concepts laid down in Jet’s “guidelines”.
I'm not referring to the specific community here. Community moderators can justifiably and unjustifiably ban accounts for their voting behaviour. I was just asking if you think its ever appropriate to ban someone for their voting behaviour.
I think I’ve already answered that in the previous comment. I’m not really interested in debating the ethics of downvoting or moderation in general in the middle of a discussion about a case of specific, contextual behavior.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
So trans communities should keep TERFs around ?
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Can you identify a TERF from a single downvote? Or even 3 or 5 downvotes and no comments?
ech@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
That’s not “not sharing an interest”. That’s being actively antagonistic and arguably harmful to the community. For at-risk communities, that’s a hard line to parse sometimes and it’s understandable for moderators to be less lenient in their decisions. A community about a money sink by the world’s richest idiot doesn’t really have the same concerns.