this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026

44 points (79.7% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1666 readers

141 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.

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

!fediverselore@lemmy.ca

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

unruffled@anarchist.nexus

Jordanlund removing links for being hosted on Substack again (kbin.melroy.org)

submitted 1 week ago by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Since yesterday, Jordanlund is continuing to remove reporting like that from the reputed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_Site_News (article depicted in the screenshot is https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-spy-yoni-koren-stayed-jeffrey-epstein-apartment-ehud-barak) just for being hosted with substack. He is now moderating World News and Politics at lemmy.world.

Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.

goodness, that is not the point. That means these outlets post to their own website while also reposting the thing on twitter. In so many cases, their own website uses substack/wordpress! For example, https://time.com/ is the official website of Time magazine, as in the publisher of Time Person of the Year. It uses WordPress, as you can see by going to https://time.com/wp-admin/.

If he wants to target blogspam, he should be targeting things like The Daily Beast and https://www.utubepublisher.in/, which use none of the technologies he's targeting. This ban on CMS technology is arbitrary and does not prevent poor publishing that simply registers a domain, as anyone may register a domain.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 4 points 4 days ago

I agree.

The policies of some news coms are part of the reason I just started my own. I'm a strong believer in media pluralism, which includes seeing the value in a wide variety of news sources. How something looks or where it's published has little to do with the quality of the journalism.

Lawfare is on substack. Unicorn riot looks trashy as hell, but they're used as a first source by fact checkers and do high quality investigations. The Klaxon looks like a blog site run by one guy, but that guy is a professional journalist who performs well-sourced in-depth investigations.

However, those are the rules of the community and they've given no inclination about changing them. Better to find or create a better com.

[–] Ice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

In this case YDI since them's the rules. If you want things changed maybe make a meta post to discuss it on the comm, see what the people think?

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

i’ve never seen a meta thread in that commag. i suspect that Jordanl enforces the “post news articles only” rule quite well. here’s where it’s been discussed:

https://programming.dev/comment/15884017

https://lemmy.world/comment/14172977

Jordanl simply repeats the same argument about X and disengages when people ask him to respond to the well-known refutation

[–] Ice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I haven't seen one either, but then again, I haven't seen one in most other communities. Jordanlund is definitely PTB-y and abrasive in general, but give it a [Meta] or [Discussion] tag, open the discussion and make your case. If he shuts the discussion down by just removing the post/banning you I'll definitely move it over to a PTB verdict.

[–] Ice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

@jordanlund@lemmy.world - are reasonable [Meta]/[Discussion] posts fine to discuss what the community prefers for rules & similar on /c/World@lemmy.world?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No, the community doesn't set the rules.

[–] Ice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

First off, thanks for taking the time to reply.

No, the community doesn’t set the rules.

There's setting the rules and there's discussing the rules. Am I understanding correctly that you would not allow a reasonable discussion with the members of the communities you moderate where they can give input regarding which rules they prefer?

Be aware I may quote you on this :)

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They are welcome to PM me or the others on the Mod team, the mods have a discord channel where we can discuss such things amongst ourselves.

Usually it's more along the lines of "So and so got banned, they promise to do better if we un-ban them, how about it?" that kind of thing.

But self posts and meta posts aren't allowed.

[–] Ice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago

Alright, then I'll do just that.

Here's your reply @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm abrasive in PTB because the audience here a) is biased as fuck and b) are generally bad actors complaining about not being treated like special snowflakes.

The complaint here is a great example. "You're being mean!"

Well, read rule 1 before you post:

"Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don’t allow those links either."

[–] Ice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago

Hence my verdict of "YDI" for the OP.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago

Read the rules for !world@lemmy.world :

"Rule 1:

Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don’t allow those links either."

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Hardly PTB, though. If that's their rule and they're merely enforcing it. More a discussion whether their rules make any sense. But I'm not defending WorldNews and the mods. Just saying either have rules AND enforce them. Or don't make rules in the first place. Anything else is ridiculous.

[–] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 week ago (9 children)

The powertrip here is less the application of the rule and more the total unwillingness to adapt the rule. It's being used as a tool against legitimate news from legitimate sources. It could be confirmation bias, but I do not recall seeing widespread enforcement of this particular rule by moderators other than Jordan. If that is erroneous, then it's my mistake, but based on that I believe the inclusion of Substack in that list to be Jordan's pet contribution.

If the other mods feel the same way, perhaps they'll make that known.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The problem with adapting the rules is that the community is not a monoculture. If we adapt a rule for one person, then someone else wants a different change and another person wants another change and you end up in an endless cycle of "But what about MEEEEEEEE! You changed it for THEM!'

The whole point of moderation is that SOMEONE has to have a spine and tell people "No." Unfortunately telling people no is not popular.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I've done a fair bit of IRL and online moderation, this is a slippery slope argument and simply does not happen. Unless your referring to a natural evolution of a community, in which case the rules should serve the community and not the other way around.

While I agree it's important to maintain a core goal/theme and modding is like steering a thankless pirate ship of sodomy, when saying No that No should support what the community needs.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago

Note/FYI about Jordan. They are a massive asshole anywhere whenever they are questioned. Especially when evidence is shown that they are the one in the wrong, or in times substack is brought up, change until it fits what they want.

Even better is when they can't even follow their own comms rules and are questioned🙃

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We're already seeing it happen, the idea is to keep it from getting worse. 😉 The instant you start playing favorites with Substack blogs it will be why x but not y ad infinitum.

So it's either allow all of it, including the garbage and bullshit, or block all of it.

Mods are volunteers, we aren't paid to deal with "but why did you block my site and not theirs?" So we block all of it from certain sources.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am a mod, like I said.

Do you mean that people complain or that they ask questions? Because "why that blog and not this one" is a reasonable question for a user to ask.

A general rule about quality and misinformation gives you precedent to remove content that doesn't meet your criteria. And, let's face it, world news allows borderline tabloids that routinely publish misinformation so that bar is low.

You're right, being a mod isn't paid. You can stop whenever you want if you don't like answering questions.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You aren't a mod in !world@lemmy.world 😉

I mod other communities and similarly don't have these problems. World is unique due to the size and the heated opinions (notably Gaza and Ukraine).

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Did you have an opinion on my comments, or did you just see an easy opening with "you aren't a mod of world?" and take the jab? Never said I was a mod there.

World's size and genre don't have anything to do with my comments, and it's hard to believe users are as bad as you say when you still mod a bunch of big communities. Kind of infantilizing the way you talk about people in the comments, too.

If I'm wrong, I'm down with hearing why.

So, are they complaining, suggesting, or asking for clarity? And, like I said, World already allows poor journalism, so the ban on substack isn't really quality control.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It's very simple, World users break the rules, get modded, and run screaming to PTB.

Citation? This entire thread. It's a unique animal different from others that I mod or you mod.

Again, partly due to the size, but partly due to the heated nature of the content.

People want, really want, to be the first to post something, even if it's a supremely shitty source or outside the bounds of the community. It gets modded and the reaction is "How dare you!"

Yeah, how dare I mod a community, fuck me, right?

Just tonight, I pulled one about Trump wanting to cancel the 2026 elections. Sorry, goes in !news@lemmy.world or !politics@lemmy.world , not World.

But man, people will stretch and scream to make their point. Then the reaction is "Well, I don't like your rules, change them." How about "No." Don't like the rules? Go somewhere else. LOL.

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This isn't the only platform I've had to moderate a community. I've had far more difficulty in IRL spaces where people can not only complain to my face, but through throwaway accounts and emails. I'm not speaking from a lack of experience.

I can see why the news brings in some heated arguments, especially a community as big as world. Mine are small, yet I see disproportionate drama (and the occasional angry dm) about headlines and my rare mod actions.

I can even relate to the difficulty treading the line with the rule on internal american news.

But again, this reads like you really hate the users. People aren't running and screaming here, especially not in this post — It's someone with a legitimate concern and a reasoned argument, and, with as big a ship as World, people are going to have ideas about how to steer it. Opinions and questions aren't the same as an indignant "how dare you," framing it that way is disingenuous and speaks to how you view the people here. They're not a amorphous blob of hate, some are just folks wanting a honest conversation.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh, no, I don't hate the users in general. There are SPECIFIC users I hate, like that one asshole who comes out of nowhere with a new account, posts a dozen times, and deletes their account over and over and over again.

I would say, of the mod actions I take, maybe 1 in 100 becomes a problem? Most people either take it like a grown up and move on with life or actually apologize and do better.

But man, that 1 in 100...

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I find it difficult to hate anyone one here. We're all just trying to make sense of the world. I share stories of the small minority with my drama loving friends, so it's a positive in the end.

In this situation, it's an obviously engaged user who genuinely wants to know more. I like people who are passionate about something enough to not only spend energy thinking about it, but think about ways to improve things. Those are valuable users who shouldn't be dissuaded from sharing their ideas.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Speaking of that 1 in 100... PM tonight... Dude had a comment removed for referencing a "final solution", another mod banned them, I get this:

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know what you're trying to say here. That people suck on the internet? You do get that we're all in this cursed place together, right?

I'm not gonna pull a "eat because starving kids in Africa" because folks who threaten to burn down someone's house are a bad time for everyone, but I've been getting rape threats since I was on the internet. You get shit for being a mod, half the population gets shit for being women. We all get shit for some reason or another.

That person sucks and that situation sucks but you don't have my sympathy for it.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that 99/100 times moderation is just administrata, but man, that 1/100 case...

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago

Crazy.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You seem to bring this up every time someone asks about this. It doesn't have to be an endless cycle of whining. It is not difficult to establish some kind of community-curated list of legitimate journalistic substacks that have bona fide journalistic teams and mastheads. It might actually be less work for you to do that instead of having to copy paste the same canned infantilizing response every other week.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -3 points 4 days ago

It's already an endless cycle of whining. 😉 What I'm saying is we drew the line. As soon as we open that door to "some Substacks but not others" it will be an endless drama of "You're biased!" and "You're a Zionist!" and "Well you're a Nazi!"

No, just... NO. The only fair way to do it is what we've done. No blogs. If you want a community full of crappy blogposts, youtube videos, and low effort shitposting, nothing is stopping anyone from creating one.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I thought the issue with Substack was that they wouldn't remove nazi content?

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Accurate. And then they send out a mass notification promoting one of the nazi groups. Fuck substack.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

By that standard, most corporate media shouldn't be allowed.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -5 points 6 days ago

i think most corporate media meet the standard of not hosting nazis

load more comments