i am reminded that if “social media” didn’t devolve we’d have organized and come together to solve (crisis upon crisis) already and politicians would’ve had a digital polling station and direct communication with the populace.
instead Facebook Twitter YouTube is what it is.
Beehaw’s only rule is to bee nice. Surely anything that violates that rule isn’t worth any of our time to read.
Obviously a fake rule, since I don’t see any risk of the person I was replying to being banned.
Like most online discussion spaces these days, the “moderation” isn’t spam filtering, it’s censorship by bullies who conveniently pretend they’re only censoring bullies. At least that’s my guess based on vote scores on certain content
If you believe they violated Beehaw’s rules, report them.
If you want to be in a space without moderation, then Beehaw isn’t for you. Moderation isn’t only spam filtering. If you believe that’s what moderation should be, that’s okay. But that isn’t what it is here or in almost any space.
I’m not going to report them, I’m just trying not to let them bait me into getting myself banned.
The problem is if I did give them the reply they deserved, I might be banned when I’m the one treating them fairly, and I doubt they’d face a longer ban for baiting me or anything.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, me trying to get them banned doesn’t help with the fact that online spaces form bullying cults that ban victims. Either neither of us should be banned, or the instigator should be banned without punishing the victim. If you really feel like punishing victims, it would at least look less culty and psychopathic if instigators were treated more harshly. But I’m not the one removing the option to just let everyone talk freely with no bans for non-spammers.