If fedi node A and node B both have an anti-spam rule, it makes good sense that when a moderator removes a post for spam that it would be removed from both nodes. But what about other cases? Lemmy is a bit blunt and nuance-lacking in this regard.

For example, the parent of this thread was censored despite not breaking any rules. More importantly, it breaks no rules on slrpnk.net. Yet the slrpnk version was also removed.

I’m not sure exactly what the fix is. But in principle an author should be able to ask a slrpnk admin to restore the post in the slrpnk version of that community, so long as no slrpnk rules are broken by the post.

It’s one thing for various nodes to federate based on having compatible side-wide rules, but they aren’t necessarily aligned 100% and there are also rogue moderators who apply a different set of rules than what’s prescribed for a community.

    • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
      1·
      4 months ago

      Dude, we nuked your post because you were being a nuisance. Stop being a nuisance.

      Everyone sees the post because I cross-posted it. The link I posted is to the cross-post.

      Inside that thread is the only content people cannot see. There were only two posts which I can expose here so people can verify your claim:

      responder:

      I remember reading a while back (so don’t take it as gospel) that, for Australia at least, legal tender meant that if you have a debt owed for something, legally that person has to allow you to settle the debt with legal tender currency.

      However there is nothing that says they have to accept the transaction to begin with, meaning they were allowed to have a rule like this because if you didn’t accept it, they just didn’t sell to you, which means there was no debt accrued that you could settle with legal tender. And if you did accept it, you’ve already paid with your card, so no need for cash.

      Don’t know if the same logic applies in Europe but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a similar justification. They have to accept legal tender for a debt, but they don’t have to allow the debt to be incurred.

      my reply:

      That’s exactly how it is in the US as well. The US makes a clear distinction between point of sale (PoS) transactions and debt payments. Legal tender must¹ be accepted accepted in the US as payment toward a debt. W.r.t. PoS, legal tender is protected in the sense that legal tender can be accepted, but both parties must agree.

      I thought it was bizarre that #Belgium does not distinguish a PoS from a debt. But it was explained to me this way: Belgium is very contract-focused. Whether you have a PoS or debt, there is always a contract of terms that come into force when two parties begin a transaction or business relationship. So that contract is still in play when it comes time to pay a debt. So the Belgians see no need to make a distinction.

      1. “Must” is a simplification. A creditor can refuse to take the money and not face any legal consequences. But if a debtor manages to leave cash in the creditor’s possession, the debt is legally regarded as paid. E.g. you can leave the money on the creditor’s countertop/desk, etc, and walk out. Seems a bit off to do that though… i mean, you would want proof of that.

      What supports this claim of being a nuisance?

      I think this is it. You have an anti-cash agenda. Anything contrary to your world view is a “nuissance”. IOW, you censor ideas you disagree with regardless of how civil the discussion is. Yet there was never a rule banning #WarOnCash chatter. This supports my case that balance of power has merit amid power-abusing mods.

      TL;DR: you’re the nuisance in this situation as you block civil, on topic discussion.

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        4 months ago

        You got me. I think cash is stupid. I’m also not particularly invested in the topic and you really really bore me.

        • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
          1·
          4 months ago

          That’s an interesting point that exposes another Lemmy problem. If a user bores the moderator, the moderator cannot block the user because that evades the moderation duty. Mods need visibility on every post. So in principle Lemmy could use a moderation delegation feature where perhaps a moderator can block a user iff there are multiple moderators and one of the other mods is not already blocking the user.

          Of course if there’s a lot of that going on, then the mods may be unfit for the job. Moderators are best when they don’t view the subscribers as being there to serve the moderator’s entertainment needs.