We, the admin team, decry all forms of settler-colonialism, and we recognize that Zionism is a pro-settler-colonialist position.
Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.
Please upvote for agree, downvote for disagree.
Note: we only count votes by instance members of dbzer0 and anarchist.nexus, plus a few vouched-for external users.
Hi mateys, I’ve kept things simple in the above text, for brevity, but in fact it took the admin team quite a while to get to this stage. We have discussed the policy change extensively, and a variety of different perspectives emerged. I will attempt to sum them up below as best I can:
-
The “this isn’t that complicated” school of thought goes something like this: If someone is consistently posting comments that mirror Hasbara talking points (e.g. justifying the genocide in Gaza, consistently painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as the victim), then they should be instance banned. It’s just not acceptable for Zionists to be allowed on our instances.
-
The “slippery slope” / “purity test” school of thought is that banning people for having an “unpopular” political opinion would potentially mean banning half the fediverse, if more and more of these policies were enacted over time. To attempt to mitigate this we are keeping the scope of this rule as narrow as possible, and I also don’t think many of our users will be affected. Also, we typically don’t have frequent policy changes, and I have no reason to expect that to change moving forward.
-
Another important discussion point was “how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not?” We can’t always be 100% sure of someone’s true intentions, we can only go on what they have posted and that is subject to interpretation. I don’t feel there is an easy answer to this one, except to say that we would have to be pretty certain before issuing a perma-ban.
-
The “geopolitics don’t matter” school of thought is that trying to be on the “correct” side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don’t bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.
Please add your comments below if you want to provide your own thoughts on the topic, or have any questions.
expiry: 7
See, but your one example related to this precise issue is bad, the 500 page Israeli report cannot be assumed to have any value and should only be assumed to have negative value when you understand that regime, their goals, their actions, and the consequences of it all.
Of course bad info is going to be available, but your example of one that should be granted any trust at all is awful and indicates either your poor understanding of Israel the state, or the facts of the ongoing genocide.
This question is not about general Lemmy behavior. This question is about specific moderation on a specific topic for our instance.
Your take is bad, your frustration experienced elsewhere is not our problem or related to our governance decision here, and genocide accompanied by modern high-tech armies of propaganda whitewashing it does justify some REASONABLE defensive action on our own instance.
Meh. The literal Nazis released reports on smoking being bad for you. They were correct to suggest there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. They weren’t correct to suggest the introduction of tobacco was a Jewish plot to weaken the master race.
It’s the whole argumentum ad hominem /argumentum ad auctoritas fallacy thing.
Just because the source of a report is the Israeli government, doesn’t necessarily mean it is entirely fallacious.
Because if it was, by that logic if the Israeli government releases a report where they do admit doing something wrong, that’s a lie because it’s an Israeli report, and they did nothing wrong.
Obviously, you should double check, etc. Especially when something comes from a questionable source or when it’s about a contentious subject.
Don’t know if I understood you wrong. Maybe I’m just clarifying.
The Nazis could have been reporting on the fucking weather - doesn’t make them a trustworthy source for anything, let alone matters relating specifically to the defense of their existence.
I think we’re saying similar things. My point regarding credibility is that any document coming from the state of Israel:
This is exactly as true for anything that came out of Nazi Germany as it is anything coming out of modern Israel, for exactly the same reasons.
Sounds like we’re roughly on the same page, or close enough.
This is actually a good argument, and I’ll give you props for it. Both examples, the 500 page report and the singular independent journalist are arguments I have run into which I cannot effectively share to a credible point in this discussion. Both were debates I had on Lemmy with people and without sharing 50 messages (exaggeration for effect as I am not going to go back and count the actual number) of context.
Both examples are anecdotal, but they are only that… examples. You can choose to believe whether my anecdotal experience has any merit and I won’t try to prove that it does, but I’m providing my experience to this question as a data point.
I will point out that you have effectively proved a certain portion of my argument though.
You have no context for what was discussed or debated, but because I have said the source came from Israel you have already dismissed any legitimacy it might have simply because of who it came from.
It’s hard for me to imagine an official document coming from the state of Israel on any topic that I would place any inherent trust in, I would say I can’t believe anything out of that government (any branch) that can’t be verified in some other way, and I think that’s the correct position to take given what I’ve learned.
Anything that state produces has negative legitimacy to me by default, not no legitimacy, and that’s an intentional position I take based on observation. Note that doesn’t mean it can’t have true information in any case on any topic, just that it carries negative legitimacy or expectation of truth by default, a lot of it, and needs more backup than even something unsubstantiated that sounds broadly likely from an unknown source.
So it sounds like we fundamentally disagree on that. I don’t feel the need to bicker about it if you don’t, and I appreciate the measured reply.
I mean, do you believe Israel’s own reporting that that have an over 80% civilian kill rate versus actually enemy combatants? Because that’s where that number comes from.
That’s what I said and mean, the question is about credibility, what rough assumptions to use about the information, due to its source, before any further validation. It’s a misread to imply I’m arguing nothing they produce can ever be shown to be accurate.
I don’t find it hard to believe kills are >80% civilian for Palestinians, no. It matches what I understand about the situation, acknowledging my own flawed ability to know.
I feel like that’s a fair conclusion, we cannot agree on this topic because on a fundamental level there is some information you cannot accept (and that’s ok so long as you recognize it). This is your instance, not mine, and the whole point in my comments was to raise the opposing point for you and the instance admins to see the whole argument and what would be missed by banning alternate opinions.
I appreciate your debate and discussion as well as your time and consideration. If it’s any consolation I don’t agree with what Israel has and is doing, but I am more unsure on how I feel the world should handle the situation. I don’t have the confidence in my own knowledge to be as absolutist as you are.
We’re pretty far past needing a harvard style debate on whether Zionism is criminal. Thats just a fact and you know it. And if you cant admit that zionism has done unspeakable evil, then I dont think you are being honest about why you’re here.
Well, let us know if you feel more sure, should you ever come to grips with the devastation being delivered to the people of Palestine.
You’re certainly right that there is “some information” I cannot accept. Again you make it general, again I maintain it’s specifically “information” coming out of a technologically ~peerless, unapologetically (but certainly deceptively) genocidal state.
There are indeed few things I’m absolutist on, even more crucially toward what other people should be allowed to do. Look at the instance I’m on and it’s very well-stated principles.
This issue is so beyond the pale. The further you go making this argument “but it’s about accepting information and allowing discussion”, the further you dig a hole shaped like “bad faith”. It’s a fuckin genocide. Brutal and despicable beyond all description. With armies of tech propagandizing. The argument that “information” from Israel as a state deserves any benefit of the doubt, out of some principle of fairness, or that “open discussion” is the crucial issue on this ongoing coordinated tragedy - that is absolutism, the ugly kind. Enough.