They posted to the snark comm, the harassment follows. Just because there’s no proof they were personally sending the messages doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

if anything the defamation was coming from emopunker, declaring people upvoting the thread about their instance being zionist as ‘the same person’ to a snark comm was pretty clearly implying a call to action for someone

Dbzer0 civility rules aim to protect marginalized people from harassment. feddit.org’s are being deployed to protect Zionism from criticism while tone-policing Palestinians and their allies. These aren’t the same thing just because they both use the word ‘civility.’

feddit isn’t exactly enforcing civility neutrally. They’re silencing anti-Zionism while treating Zionist positions as the default that deserves civil engagement. That’s a political choice with the fig leaf of ‘just following orders the law’, hardly ‘basic logic’. But thanks for explaining to a silly girl like me

In the thread I linked the thread op and several others were complaining about DM harrassment.

That was happening immidiately after emopunker decided to post the names of three upvoters of the defederation thread in meanwhileongrad, while the vote was still happening.

It’s a pretty straightforward chain of events, if you’re insisting on seeing nothing I think the problem is between your keyboard and your chair

Zionists are not on the left

Death to America

“Rules are important! I’m a good German, I follow the rules.” -German soldier in the 1940s

Bye, your contributions to the conversation won’t be missed

you sound charming, I hope you stay away from those things for everyone else’s sake

you started the whataboutism with 'what about the community rules"

please answer my question and do not answer with whataboutism or the discussion is over.

How would you categorize the feddit.org admin using a snark comm to get people to send DM harrassment to users who upvoted the feddit.org defederation thread?

is that ‘being nice’?

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

• Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham Jail 1963

“Rules are important! I’m a good German, I follow the rules.” -German soldier in the 1940s

so there’s surely more to the story than this.

I mean in addition to instances zionism the feddit.org admin used a troll comm to called out several users for the crime of upvoting the defed thread, and then those users started getting DM harassment

all the data is public in lemvotes

not all, its defederated from .ml for example

However if you’re an admin on any instance you can still freely see votes

"the real anti-electoralists are the ones demanding that everyone vote for one of the genocidal bourgeois parties’

I am an anarchist though.

I don’t know if I’d qualify whining about ‘tankies’ online as doing much of anything, I spend a not-insignificant amount of time every week outside doing things with other anarchists

Oh it’s like old forum mode, where comment in an old thread bumps it to the top. It lets you see if people are still replying in a week old thread

It’s always amusing browsing all with ‘new comments’

based on the context (and other things you’ve said) it does look like you showed up in response to an ongoing conversation to derail it with demanding attention for your concocted position, which looks like sealioning.

You should post a link

It also seems like you were the sealion

I’m not a fan of removing comments with ban so the mod fucked up there

Im gonna call this BPR, but you also deserved some action, I just cant see how bad your comments were

not so much of a loss if that was the best part about it lmao