Hi folks, I’m the mod @GreenKnight23 is complaining about.

I removed four of his comments for incivility, out of the eight he had posted in the thread at the time. I chose those four and only those four because they consisted pretty much entirely of insults and accusations against another user. I omitted the other four because, while some of them contained incivility too, they also contained valid arguments and/or weren’t as egregious.

The comments removed were:

• https://lemmy.world/comment/14285074
• https://lemmy.world/comment/14288217
• https://lemmy.world/comment/14288405
• https://lemmy.world/comment/14285112

The contents of these comments are visible in the !fuckcars modlog:

https://lemmy.world/modlog/3902?page=1&actionType=All

He then proceeded to post the paranoid unhinged rant attacking me that he copied above, basically leaving me no choice but to ban him. After some waffling over the duration (which you can also see reflected in the modlog), I chose to temporarily ban him for 1 day, the shortest interval possible.

The contents of that removed comment are not visible in the !fuckcars modlog.

Later, he wrote the comment here in !selfhosted I’m now replying to (which I noticed because it showed up in my inbox due to the username mention) and I read that he claimed that all of his comments in the thread were removed. At first I thought it was just a blatant lie and began writing a rebuttal, but then I realized that he’s right: all of them are gone, and there are no entries in the modlog detailing why they were removed or who did it.

I think what happened was that when I banned him, I checked the “remove content” checkbox thinking that it removed the comment I was banning him for, but it apparently removed all of his comments in the thread instead. Worse, it doesn’t record in the modlog that that’s what it did. On top of that, unbanning him doesn’t undo the comment removals, which is unfortunate because testing that possibility and then re-banning him afterward reset the timer to the full 24 hours again.

Anyway, I’ve looked through the thread and attempted to individually restore the comments I never intended to remove. That in itself is difficult because I can’t see what the original text was until I restore it, and the comment IDs apparently change(!) when the original text is overwritten or when they’re viewed in context or something (I haven’t quite figured out the reason yet), so I can’t just match the numbers in the URLs. Nevertheless, the state of his comments in the thread should be as intended now. Also, I learned something new about how moderation works, so that’s nice I guess.

P.S.: I’d like to give a special shout-out to this comment of his…

• https://lemmy.world/comment/14285516

…which I not only didn’t remove initially but also went to the trouble of restoring, even though it almost certainly deserves removal, just because of the minuscule chance that the deleted comment it’s replying to contained something that somehow justified it. That’s how lenient I’ve intended to be this entire time, and had still been in practice at the point @GreenKnight23 posted his rant.

P.P.S. I’m not actually colluding with any other users, BTW.

Allegedly, Al doesn’t sing that song in concert because even he himself can’t consistently get that part right.

Aside from the obvious I, Robot movie allusion, this idea doesn’t really work in the real world because robots have to be able to detect the presence and anticipate the actions of non-robots anyway. Unless you’re willing to ban all the actual people from the street, which is unreasonable, robot-to-robot communication doesn’t actually help you.

As a newly-appointed moderator myself, I think “customer service representatives curating a space” is going a little too far. I see myself more as a janitor taking out the trash while doing my best to leave all the art alone, whether I like it or not.

First of all, I have doubts about the degree of overlap between the two groups of people you mentioned. Jobs with inconsistent shifts tend to be things like food service and retail, which are distributed and local enough that anybody working such a job should be picking one they live near. Conversely, jobs specialized enough to be worth commuting a longer distance to are more likely to have consistent shifts, making carpooling more likely to be viable.

Second and more importantly, “work from home” is only one aspect of the problem and being among the executives fighting it is hardly the only thing that would make a person part of the problem. That gets us back to your first claim: “people are largely too poor to live close to work.” No, they largely are not. They’re too poor to live close to work and have a single-family house with a yard at the same time, and they choose to prioritize the latter. That not only makes them directly responsible by participating in the traffic that they’re in, it also makes them indirectly responsible by demanding policies like low-density zoning that inflates supply of single-family houses while restricting supply of dense multifamily housing. This subsidizes the price of the former, drives up the price of the latter, and physically displaces even some of the people who would like to live in dense multifamily out into the suburbs.

Man, I’m only at the “Company Ethos” question (at the very beginning) and I already don’t like the choices it’s giving me.

Nah, this isn’t some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor.

This is why I aplaud most protesters, but climate groups almost always seem to miss the mark. Bringing attention to a topic does not change policy, throwing tomato sauce at a painting or being an intentional cockwomble in traffic only inconviences those who have no power to effect change.

But climate change groups are “target[ing] the individuals responsible for supporting the problem in the first place” when they block drivers.

🍿

Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith.

Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he’d “been glib this entire time,” however, is in bad faith.

This is your warning.

You say that, but then why do things like Tumblr and Reddit keep trying to ban the sex to appease advertisers?

Americans on Lemmy be like:

Any price lower than that required to compensate for all the negative externalities of both driving and using fossil fuels to do it still counts as subsidized.

Obligatory reminder that Snowden intended to go to Ecuador and only got stuck in Russia because that’s where he was when the US revoked his passport.

Whistleblowers are always treated poorly because the people in charge never like being called out for their crimes. That’s why you’ve got to have an exit strategy, like Snowden.

No one was doing any oversight on their practices.

So that raises the question: where the fuck was the FTC?

Look at how much progress we have made in Europe since the second world war. We’ve done so much through diplomacy alone.

You say that as if that diplomacy isn’t backed by the implicit threat of NATO’s proverbial ‘big stick.’

Robber barons and spiraling inequality:

• 1920s ✓
• 2020s ✓

Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe you should move somewhere that doesn’t suck and isn’t actively killing you by forcing you into a financially ruinous and unhealthy lifestyle.

Taxes exist for public benefit, so tax evasion easily fits in the “merciless exploitation of the working class” category.