deleted by creator

Block should be handled by client so any user can decide for themselves.

Is literature.cafe defederated with them?

This leads me to think that the dev has very good intentions, but is supremely blind to his biases.

And why would an action from LW purposely be removed from the modlog on lemmy.ml?

Are you asking me why instances who might want to abuse their power might not propagate certain actions to other instances so they aren’t as visible? Or why it might seem like a bug when attempts at removal don’t seem to work out? I’m not accusing you, but these are valid concerns lemmy has to face.

But yeah, f it’s “bad server code” and not actually federated when bugs occur, there’s not much of a point to claiming they are. So far I don’t see that there might have been willing intent to screw with the modlog as the original complaint suggested, but it shouldn’t be left up to good faith. If it’s supposed to be federated, it should be. If everything isn’t getting federated, it should be clear what isn’t. If the modlog isn’t displaying everything, it should be clear when it isn’t. As of now, to anyone who can’t bother to look at the code, it’s a black box and it’s clear that the modlogs between servers aren’t lining up the same.

The user publicly said they did not agree to the TOS so they got removed.

Where did the user say they did not agree with the TOS? No point in not citing the original comment that was archived, because there’s no point there at which it does. It only contains criticism in a thread made by admins saying they were open to criticism. The closest it comes to not agreeing with the TOS is the criticism here:

“You waive Lemmy.World … from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.” - I see many lawyers try to sneak this one, but there are very few courts that wouldn’t allow me to file a claim even with this under a Terms of Service I haven’t even had to explicitly indicate I agree with if, say, lemmy.world decided to violate my GDPR protections because censors in China didn’t like a comment I made about Tiananmen Square, requested my personal private data lemmy.world has on me, and they decided to give it to them.

But at least thanks for opening up on that. Is it also true that you haven’t contacted them or responded to them directly either?

You can’t convince me that you’re not internettubes yourself btw. You started posting as soon as Internettubes was banned and the few conversations you join is about the ban.

Considering how little it took for a user to get their entire user account purged and banned, I’m not sure why you would consider it surprising that anyone else who raises an eyebrow wouldn’t want to risk any previous account they made.

It’s a testament that you haven’t banned this account already from the instance given how you treated the original user, but it still seems like hunting around for an excuse, like maybe being able to apply the label of “ban evasion” like that you gave kbin.social/InternetTubes, just to dismiss criticism.

You and AvaddonLFC certainly seem to know each other personally and are the two most active admins on the instance, so if I do seem to be pushing this, it’s because I am definitely concerned about making any considerable amount of contributions over a considerable degree of time only to have it deleted or removed with a complete and utter disregard.

I’d rather face the problem sooner rather than later. Allowing it or not saying anything about it is basically allowing a way to gaslight and remove the reputation a user might have built up over time to one where it’s just a random claim versus a position of seniority. I’ll give you that I am one of the few people who seems to care about the issue, so I probably won’t be returning to my lemmy.world account, at least not without a VPN proxy and a separate VM instance.

Lol you’re really working overtime to defend the utter bullshit your instance calls moderation standards

Rust on backend, React frontend.

Still working on that, but I have some ideas:

• text only - images, videos, and other binary content must be stored elsewhere (could still have links though)
• data is stored encrypted (user option) - wouldn’t show up in scans
• clear separation between “stuff I’m interested in” and “random stuff I’m hosting for the network” - plausible deniability
• perhaps an option to opt out of random data storage - you’d still store stuff you’re interested in

But yeah, that’s a huge part of why I’m unwilling to share the code until I’m comfortable with the moderation engine. I think there’s an opportunity to use that moderation engine to reduce storage of CSAM (i.e. don’t store data from blocked users).

They’re what the Soviet Union referred to as “useful idiots”. They parrot Russian propaganda because they like the aesthetics. They aren’t all Russians themselves. In fact, I would be willing to bet most aren’t.

I totally understand the reasoning behind thinking it’s state actors or certain members being shills–But there’s not much to gain for governments to shill in niche, extremist communities. Why shill your loyal followers when they parrot everything already? Instead, it’s much more effective to use large, mainstream social media websites, like Twitter, Reddit or Facebook, just check out anything politically trending to see the shills and contrast them with these users.

It is true, these small communities do swallow up state propaganda without much thought, but they aren’t shills. Most are just lonely people who hate everything and themselves.