this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
92 points (84.3% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

940 readers
156 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

Damn, i liked sag :(

I think i'm going with a soft PTB from my pov. Tbf dbzer0 is pretty lax on rules, especially towards people outside the instance. I don't think it's within my place or anyone else's to ban someone from such a huge part of the fediverse.

But this highlights the need to decentralize from .world, the fact that a single instance ban can take away such a huge part of the fediverse from a user feels ridiculous.

I get why they did it, but it feels unfair.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

PTB, this seems really like they're overstepping their bounds, @Demigodrick@lemmy.zip has clarified the matter.

Unfortunately this isn't the first time Lemmy.world has done something like this using "legal" as an excuse, and probably won't be the last time. They're too big so they'll never get defederated or penalized by any server wishing to stay even remotely relevant so nothing is likely to change.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Bruh

Why we banning kids now?

What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?

😓

[–] Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online 20 points 3 days ago (9 children)

What if they have shitty parents and need to go online to vent?

That's the whole point, they want to keep children away from support networks to enforce the idea of parents owning their children. People are going to argue otherwise but as a trans person myself I've seen this and you're not fooling anyone with your lame excuses about protecting kids. People especially those who are vulnerable need support networks, do you know how many trans kids kill themselves because they can't get the support they need and live with abusive and controlling parents. Don't tell me it's to protect kids, I'm not stupid enough to buy that lie and you're not stupid enough to think I'd buy it.

[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Children are not fucking chattel and I'm tired of pretending like they are.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Aw, they actually did the ban. That's unfortunate.

On one hand, yes, legal liability and all that, but on the other hand half the site is copyright violations. The law only matters sometimes. I say this as someone who has hosted web communities myself, there's no reason to be banning for something like age on these instances, especially when we're talking 16 and not 12. It's unenforceable and trivial enough that there's no legal pressure to do so.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (19 children)

Hey, I’m the one that decided to ban this user. I understand the frustration, but it is very much in the TOS of lemmy.world and has been for a long time.

We are having an internal discussion to see if there’s room to lower the age to 16 and if we can make exceptions for federated users.

I hope you see that this really isn’t meant as a powertrip, and we are just trying to protect the Lemmy.world site.

Sorry if I do not respond to comments quickly, it’s late in my timezone.

[–] sag@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago

Any update on this?

If LW is banning me for real then ban my all alt.

@sag@ani.social

@sag@lemy.lol

[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 3 days ago (9 children)

Hello,

Thank you for chiming in. Exceptions for federated users would be nice, especially for someone turning 18 in a few months.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] arudesalad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

(Opinion bit)

There should definitely be an exception for federated users. @sag@lemm.ee did not sign up to lemmy.world and therefore did not agree to the ToS.

(I am not a lawyer, anyone else can correct the stuff I say below)

Since lw isn't storing sag's data (apart from public posts and comments) there shouldn't be any concerns with child data protection. lemm.ee would be serving them content that under 18s shouldn't view, not lw (unless they are hosting it, which I don't think you do?). I may be missing something (again, not a lawyer) but what is the point of this other than being (in my opinion, a bit too) careful with the law?

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 22 points 3 days ago (45 children)

I'm really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:

This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it's API's and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.

Sag wasn't accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn't comply with a part of their TOS.

load more comments (45 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›