What’d I miss?

  • Kamikaze Rusher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    17 hours ago

    They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views.

    My username appears on the list and I don’t believe my comment history aligns with this statement at all. I believe my username is just unique enough to not have another instance of it. Selection of some usernames do not appear to support their (admiralpatrick) claims of violence advocation nor extreme political views.

    • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You could have said something as innocuous and logical as trans folks have the right to defend themselves or a thousand other violence adjacent notions. Objection to violence outright is just navel gazy utopic thinking. It sounds nice but it isn’t practical reality. There is always a line.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      See, THIS is the issue I wish people would focus on. The dev of a pretty important frontend has set up a block list. They have made it the default. They have not applied a clear and equitable criteria, set up a community feedback channel, or any sort of crowdsourced input.

      The modlog is open, meaning that anyone can see exactly what moderators and admins (generally) are up to. People can (and do) push back when things decisions are punitive, arbitrary, or unclear.

      This is not that. You have no way to see why your username was included, or correct it if it was in error. There is no community feedback to direct what standard makes sense.

      That’s the problem. It’s draconian. By manufacturing some shrill accusations of bigotry, yeah, it makes a lot more flashy posts, but doesn’t help in addressing the issue. If we can’t accurately name problems, we can’t solve them. We are just a mob on a witch-hunt.