this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
-11 points (37.8% liked)

Asklemmy

49762 readers
380 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Epstein case has a lot of evidence supporting a conspiracy, and I certainly think there is more to it than we know. But in recent days I've seen upvoted comments about (a) the NYC shooter not actually targeting the NFL despite all reporting suggesting otherwise, and (b) that Russia intentionally caused the Earthquake.

I think given the self-selective nature of a federated social network we already need to be vigilant about preventing any kind of 4chanification. I'm not calling for censorship of any kind, but I do find it raises some beige flags for me about Lemmy...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 10 points 4 days ago (5 children)

I've not really noticed it, but who knows what instances are or aren't. Personally I don't think it's "censorship" when good modding steps in and says "No, that's blatantly false and you're just trying to stir the pot, removed"

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works -5 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Ah yes, the most rational Lemming claiming that removing content isn't censorship - rather than arguing that censorship can be good, actually

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 3 points 4 days ago

If the instance or community guidelines state “X isn’t allowed,” then it isn’t censorship to remove X. It becomes censorship when mods start removing things for reasons other than enforcing instance or community guidelines. Until that point, it’s just content moderation.

If the c/Androids community guidelines state that “This community is about human-like robots. Posts regarding the phone OS are unwelcome” and a mod removes such a post, that isn’t censorship. Likewise for spam, or reposts, or any number of other things.

On the other hand if the mods remove a post about a human-like robot built in China because they’re sinophobic, that is censorship. Likewise if the human-like robot was built by Tesla, if the lead engineer were a woman, or anything along those lines. Likewise if the post were instead critical of such a robot - still censorship (unless it’s a news only community and the post was free text or a meme).

Likewise if a community’s guidelines state that controversial statements without reputable sources backing them up, statements known to be false, or statements that have been flagged as false by a fact checker are prohibited, then removing such statements isn’t censorship. It’s moderation.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)