Formatting in the modlogs is weird since the spacing is messed up, but the original comment looked like this:
Netanyahu:
Delays ending the genocide for as long as he can
Deny that genocide is happening
Next comes Depose
Great, what next?
“Kill Hitler” also gets removed? 🤣
Also: Depose =/= Kill
Then why is “Bibi is denying and delaying in service to genocide, next comes depose” calling for violence?
Quoting myself from a different branch.
Again, we are evaluating the fairness of moderation; This moderator has a clear rule, and is following it reasonably. Even if they err on the side of over cautious its still a reasonable moderation decision.
If they had just said depose, it wouldn’t have the implication of assassination happening, while we’ve established that acknowledging that assassination is the logical progression of Bibi’s shitheaddery is not the objectionable part.
You see, if you had said this was blasé towards a violent outcome, I would agree, but I would not agree that it’s advocating violence.
My issue is not so much with the removal as the reasoning. This casts a MUCH wider net for ‘calling for violence’ that, realistically speaking, would need to be applied to a much larger swathe of comments than is probably wise to be consistent.
Totally agree. Would “will no one rid me of this turbulent
priestNetanyahu?” be censored too? Most likely.Violence is part of life and part of politics, like it or not. While a lot of liberal-minded folks in the US screw their noses up in disdain at this fact, anyone who has read a history book (or read the news lately) knows that violence is sometimes that only way to end oppression. Instead of considering the violent act of killing that sociopathic CEO as the problem here, they should recognize that the legal system in the US is designed to protect the rich and keep the poors under the boot.
I honestly think a lot of them are still labouring under the delusion that the legal system is fair and justice is blind. They want us all to follow the letter of the law, no matter how unfair, unethical and corrupt the legal system is. I get that they don’t want to get into any personal legal trouble, but ffs they need to grow a spine and actually stand for something instead of engaging in massively over-the-top policing of their communities.
If Trump enacts a law requiring people to report to the police every time they hear someone say anything critical of his government, then I wonder whether the LW admin team will roll over and comply with that law too? How willing are they to be collaborators with new fascist government policies? Sipping cups of tea with your new neo-Nazi neighbours might be the “civil” thing to do, but you had better get used to them living next door, because history has taught us you don’t get rid of Nazis by being polite to them. Oops, was that another “call to violence”? Better turn myself in then…
Its a PTB as far as I’m concerned - maybe not from this specific mod, but from the admin team as a whole. Just because it’s a rule they have decided to adopt, doesn’t mean its a good or just rule.
Moderators are gardeners and each community is an allotment. Some gardeners want wonderful flowers, some want heart veggies, some even want extra spicy peppers.
If a moderator makes it clear what the rules are for the garden, and they follow their own published rules… Then they are being a good gardener. If you buy a ticket for the tropical arboretum and when you get inside you see they haven’t been weeding, then you would be rightly upset.
Lemmy is wonderful because so many voices can be heard in many places on different topics. Everyone here saying ‘yes it was against the rules, but that shouldn’t matter in this case’ is being unfair to the moderator who is behaving reasonably.
There is no shortage of communities here where people can be as spicy as they want to be.
I believe .world is hosted outside of America, but I mostly agree with the main point.
While the original comment is maybe a little ambiguous, it’s very reasonable to assume this is a call for violence in the current context.
OP even confirms that was their meaning in the title of this thread.
Fair enough, we differ on our interpretation.
I don’t think there is any issue with the moderator, or their moderation decision demonstrated here.
Lemmy is a textual language based medium; Moderators are developing reputations by their actions. There will always be a requirement of interpretation. I don’t see anything problematic here.