this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
-7 points (41.9% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

290 readers
50 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Rules

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Earlier today drag was banned from !politics@lemmy.world for this post: https://lemmy.nz/post/15864724

The reason stated was "Dishonest headline and quoting".

The sidebar of the community states the following on article titles:

Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.

The article's original title was "Harris vs. Trump spoiler’s supporter says the quiet part out loud" - in drag's opinion, this is clickbait. The quiet part is not stated in the title. The reader has to click on the article in order to learn what it's actually about.

Drag's post title was "Jill Stein ally says the Greens' strategy is about making Harris lose the presidency" - this clearly states which group is involved and what precisely the controversial statement was. But drag was banned for making the title more clear.

The sidebar of the community states the following on article quotes:

Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Drag quoted three passages from the article in the post body: The quote from the Jill Stein ally which the article was about, and two passages about Donald Trump's relation to these events. None of the quotes were edited. As asked by the sidebar drag did not post the entire body, only the parts drag believed was relevant, and drag was banned for following this rule too.

The vast majority of comments on the post, including all the highly upvoted comments, agreed with the points made by the article and expressed zero problem with the presentation. There were two comments which had a problem with drag's presentation of the article:

…um, where is the second half of this article? (2 upvotes)

This comment is a non-issue; posting the entire article in the body is against the community rules. Drag was following the rules by only posting half.

Least dishonest LW politics OP quoting an entire article out of context (1 upvote)

This comment agrees with the moderation decision but does not explain why, and drag can't work out why on drag's own. Drag tried drag's best to represent the article accurately.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thouartfrugal@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Remember seeing the original title, unable to make sense of it after multiple re-reads. Your edit is clear and succinct.