Due to a (now former) admin of the instance anarchist.nexus calling for a member of our team, as well as anyone else they call a zionist, to be murdered, the instance has been defederated.
We’re currently discussing how we will proceed with this situation and whether it will affect lemmy.dbzer0.com, which is mostly run by the same admin team, notably excluding the person who used to be on the anarchist.nexus admin team.
We will share further updates once we have them.
Update 2026-04-22 23:25 UTC: anarchist.nexus federation has been reactivated.
We are still discussing this matter, but there is currently no point in keeping anarchist.nexus defederated while lemmy.dbzer0.com is federated.
the tea is all over yepowertrippinbastards, and i gotta say i agree with the prevailing sentiment. mrkaplan is making a bad move, but its indicative of a pattern of politically based moderation that pervades .world.
No, you know what, keep the typo; it’s correct.
it’s not a typo, but I can see the syntax is unclear
despite pretending neutrality, .world bases it’s moderation on political motivations
edit:
love when they try to poison the well and encourage dog piling. shows they are truly grounded in good faith. /s
Everyone bases their decisions on political motivations, it’s part of being a political species.
sure, but why didn’t the admins just advertise their real politics instead of pretending they aren’t prozionist
Not everyone. I dont make choices based on politics, because I do not engage with or participate in politics as best I can. Especially here on Lemmy.
As a mod for .world/c/cars, I only make choices based on the rules of the community and instance. I might not agree with a post or comment, but if it isn’t breaking the rules then I don’t do anything about it, and if its reported content then I will just close the report. Admittedly, its pretty low traffic so I haven’t needed to do much, and the other mod is great and handles things usually before I need to get involved.
I believe it is the responsibility of a mod, admin, or other figure in a position of power to not abuse that power. Fair and equal application of rules, extending the benefit of the doubt but still firm about the rules, etc. are ways to avoid this IMO, so that is what I try to do.
Someone having a different opinion or belief should never be a reason for mod action, even if I think that opinion or belief is wrong. Unless it is against the rules (or clearly dangerous such as suggesting drinking bleach for any reason), it should be allowed to be said. Users shouldnt be afraid to have posts removed at random or because I dont agree with them. Sometimes this means a new rule needs to be made, and thats okay.
You make decisions for your community based on the rules. There’s another word for rules: policies. You make decisions based on the policies. That’s politics. What I think is going on here is, you don’t make decisions based on external politics, just internal politics.
Do you wanna just get the “muh freeze peach” part over while you’re at it and save us some time? You just say they’ve feigned neutrality but then never back it up because a) you know it’s provably horseshit, and b) it doesn’t matter because you’re trying to separate things into political and apolitical categories that fundamentally do not exist and – as we all know from conservatives pulling this schtick for decades – only hurt the victim by silencing what you determine to be “political” speech and actions.
Yes, it’s political that an instance admin called for another instance’s admin to be killed; yes, it’s political to defederate from them in the sense that everything about social media and group dynamics generally is inherently political; no, I don’t think it being political is a bad thing like you’re pretending to. I’m sure you haven’t raised a squeak whenever an instance would choose to defederate from a hateful, far-right cesspit; the reality is that the person feigning care about neutrality here is you.
Edit: Oh, they moderate a Jill Stein community. Their unhinged behavior below makes way more sense now.
you know, you don’t have to defend the admins. they’re not going to suck you off.
wow, this screed doesn’t at all debunk the accusation of overt pro-zionist moderation
edit:
jill stein is anti Zionist, too
Dropped that whole “political” thing like a rock, didn’t you? You never said anything about “pro-Zionist moderation”; your only two comments that I replied to were whinging about “politically based” and “political motivations”, and now you’re pivoting with no acknowledgement, because you’re fundamentally arguing in bad faith.
If your problem is their specific politics, you can be upfront about that, but you deliberately chose not to, and you’ve proven discussion with you is not worth anyone’s time because of it.
zionism is obviously a political position, and the mods have feigned impartiality about it while moderating anti Zionist sentiment away. you are splitting hairs and it’s unbecoming. your shitty attitude is also damaging your case here.
Tone policing too – as though I need my argument to be compelling to somebody who intentionally layers their argument under conservative-style misdirection, and pretending as though failing to mince words to your liking hurts the credibility of my argument.
Edit: Policing my tone out one side of your mouth while remarking “[the admins aren’t] going to suck you off” out the other is so pathetically expected.
calling you out for being a dick while you are defending Zionist censorship isn’t tone policing. you’re not righteous. you’re just being a dick.
pigeonholing also doesn’t help your case
edit:
giving it back isn’t hypocrisy. it’s playing by the rules.
I thought you were done
you’ve proven discussion with you is not worth anyone’s time