this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
56 points (78.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1793 readers
78 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:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
- Keep the comments in YPTB posts about the moderation action itself, not about the general topic in which the moderation took place.
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.
YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That is what I do because I have less than 2k subscribers across all my communities, but I need to say something in the sidebar related to how I verify an article and how to determine what's a lie, which is where fact-checks come in.
Defending colonization, war crimes and genocide are fuzzy lines to draw. Sometimes news is spun by omitting facts, so an article that seems harmless can be subliminally pro-isreal when given context.
The point is, it's very hard to verify sources on that level for as big a community as World.
Everybody knows a source like timesofisrael deny genocide yet it is allowed but an source like an arabiya is not. It is pure hypocrisy
I never said I agreed with their methods. According to the fact checking link in their sidebar your souce isn't trustworthy. Again, I don't support it, but I do understand why they use mediabias to check sources.
I fully support making more, smaller news communities to get a greater diversity of media on lemmy, and encourage you to either post to them or make your own.
He has. Apologia Free News.
Fantastic, then.
I have to admit to doing a doubletake every time timesofisrael comes up. "That cannot be legit, right?"
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/times-israel-media-bias
"After a discussion including other team members, AllSides reviewers did not find The Times of Israel to exhibit strong bias in favor of Israel in its news coverage of Israel's war with Hamas. The publication did refer to Hamas members as "terrorists" and some of their statements or media as "propaganda," however did not appear to frame things in a way that is overly favorable to the Israeli establishment or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu either."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/
"Overall, we rate the Times of Israel as Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual rather than High due to one-sided pro-Israel reporting regarding Palestine. (D. Van Zandt 12/5/2016) Updated (12/13/2024)"
Again who gave any of those sites authority. Why you can't use your own brain to determine what it look like biased or not with actual proofs regarding a specific article. Yes a source that deny facts like the genocide in gaza is not legit
This too has been litigated to death, for years now, and JL knows it. Doesn’t matter.
More people give them authority than have given YOU authority. 😉
They are the go-to sites on media reliability, just because you don't personally agree doesn't make it so.
Name those people. Your sources doesn't have any evidence of biases towards lebanon
Ground News for one, as previously noted:
https://ground.news/interest/iran-news-wire
"The Ground News media bias check for Iran News Wire is unknown. Scores are assigned by aggregating bias scores from Ad Fontes Media, Media Bias/Fact Check, and AllSides.
Is Iran News Wire credible or reliable? Our Factuality score answers both of those questions. When it comes to Iran News Wire, we’ve assigned a Unknown factuality rating. Ratings are assigned by aggregating scores from Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check."
What a stupid dogmatic person you are
No. He knows fully well what he's doing. Dogmatic, yes.
Yup, he's a well known troll. Kind of surprising dbzer0 hasn't booted him yet. I've seen people booted for less severe but still liberal apologia.
Making sure bullshit sources get removed when reported? Yup! Guilty!
It's not dogma when I show you to be wrong over and over and over again.
I gave you repeated chances to use better sources, you not only refused, you doubled down in PMs.
Good riddance, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!
It is dogma to take fact checkers at face values whrn we ask you to use your brain and your own judgment you can't do it. I showed you how the source are sympatic to traitors and terrorists and you simply ignored it
Because, again, you're trying to lie your way in to being allowed to use inherently invalid sources.
Think of it like this:
You find a REALLY juicy story and you REALLY want to post it... But the only source is The New York Post.
Are you going to post it anyway and then argue like a little bitch when it gets removed?
Or, OR would you rather go "Hmm... Seems too good to be true, lets see who else is covering this..." and submit that instead.
Particularly when a mod tells you "No, not that source, try again."
The story carries way more weight coming from a legitimate source than a fantasy source and if the goal is to get the story noticed and accepted, which should be what EVERYONE wants, you, me, and everyone else in the community.
You do not want the reaction of "Yeah, but it's a bullshit site."
You would rather force your agenda, have it get removed when it breaks the rules of the community, and then argue over simply finding a better source.
Because finding a better source doesn't fit your agenda. 😉
Jordan, your shadow shows to everyone but you. I'd hope having had a close call with ending, I'd focus on making peace with my schismed self, rather than power tripping on the internet, to keep from facing myself and my mortality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns
Enforcing the rules when idiots want to break them unfettered is not power tripping, it's what mods are supposed to do.
I would think of the multiple mods and admins with the capability, a script would be easy enough to write and implement. If there was integrity and will.
We had it, people hated it, so we removed it.
Because it was Mbfc.
Some integrity would be appreciated.
We looked at other options which were a) automated and b) free to implement. For one reason or another it didn't work out.
But there's nothing wrong with MBFC outside the minds of a few radicals on Lemmy.
Zero integrity. The arguments have been well made multiple times. This is just outright lying. And this is why no one trusts anything you say.
Not "no one" and as noted in my reply to Mr. Down, they are one of the experts on bias and credibility cited by other sources.
People are free to disagree, but they all come across like the Trumpies trying to argue that Snopes or Factcheck.org are biased. Or that reality is biased. 😆
https://ground.news/interest/iran-news-wire
"The Ground News media bias check for Iran News Wire is unknown. Scores are assigned by aggregating bias scores from Ad Fontes Media, Media Bias/Fact Check, and AllSides.
Is Iran News Wire credible or reliable? Our Factuality score answers both of those questions. When it comes to Iran News Wire, we’ve assigned a Unknown factuality rating. Ratings are assigned by aggregating scores from Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check."
Zionazis trust zionazis. Damn Jordan, if you want to be evil, just own it.
Nothing Zionist in my comments. I stand by everything I say attacking Israel and demanding war crimes tribunals.
Defending Israel and tone policing people calling out Israel's atrocity makes you a Zionist. Making neoliberal excuses in favor of Israel in any way makes you a Zionist. You might've been able to get people to believe your lies and misdirection elsewhere but people here aren't buying it.
No, it doesn't. As a moderator, I enforce the clearly marked mission statements of the community.
Where those mission statements conflict with your notion of what is of is not appropriate in the discussion of Israel is not relevant.
When someone breaks the rules of the community, regardless of the position on Israel, the rules of the community come first.
Putting my opinion of "Yeah, but Israel are assholes, this time it's OK" would make me the bad moderator everyone accuses me of.
The reason communities have rules is to take the personal opinion out of it.
So, someone makes a post:
Is it a banned topic? (Posting US internal news in World for example).
Is it a banned category? (Blog site, twitter, youtube, self post, image post).
Is the source a legitimate source? Tools to identify legitimate from illegitimate provided.
Does it link to the original source and does the headline match?
Pass all four bars and we are all good. These are incredibly simple "Yes/No" gates, the rules are posted and documented.
I just don't believe you, I'm not keen on believing dishonest neoliberals. There's a reason you've earned the reputation you've earned and I've seen the evidence presented against you. There is nothing you could say that would make me believe otherwise.
Whether you like it or not, being a Zionist apologist is not dependent on you accepting the term or even understanding you are one. It's dependent on your behavior and your apologizing for Israel. Yes, liberal tone-policing discussion about genocide does count.
What you believe or don't believe is irrelevant.
Look at the posts removed and tell me I'm wrong.
I'm happy to show you, it's not hard!
I never said the fact checkers are biased. I said they have zero autority with their obscure factchecking teams. You are a dogmatic person who can't think by himself
Those three agencies are the industry standard for determining bias and credibility. You just can't handle that 2/3 of them call your sources bullshit, and all three say the site you complain about being allowed does not have enough data.
All you had to do, literally, ALL you had to do was find better sources and the posts would have been allowed.
Instead, you decided to send angry PMs.
Look, here's how easy it is:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/07/05/netanyahu-says-some-lebanese-christian-villages-asked-to-be-annexed-by-israel_6755174_4.html
You DO know who Le Monde is, right? I found this in literally seconds.
Who decided they are industry standards? Why should i be forced to use your sources? Le monde has a ton of problematic content and controversies
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/le-monde-journalists-warn-of-threat-to-editorial-independence
Le Monde is one of three French "Newspapers of Record":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
As for who put AllSides, MediaBias Fact Check and Ad Fontes in charge of determining real from fake news on the Internet? Well, the same people who put Snopes and FactCheck.org in charge of fact checking.
It's a collective decision made by most thinking people on the Internet including other news organizations and institutions of higher education.
Which makes sense that you would reject it.
So when someone like this says "Go here:"
https://library.skagit.edu/medialiteracy/journalism
You can pretty much take them at their word. And when 2 out of three bias sites call you out on your bullshit and the only reason the 3rd one doesn't is because of a paywall, you have two choices:
OR, your choice:
Snopes is owned by CIA people and Factcheck by MSM. You're extremely dogmatic and a petty tyrant, to boot.
Amazing how you do anything through all that tinfoil.
Snopes is owned by CIA people and Factcheck by MSM. You're extremely dogmatic and a petty tyrant, to boot.
Twist that tinfoil a little bit tighter.