All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said "death, death to the IDF".
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (appearing as "acargitz") pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world had comments removed for being anti-American "(again)", though I couldn't see the first time. It's not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the "DC Comics" removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
What about the violence it is okay to advocate though? That's okay, right?
Why is that? Maybe you could outline that a little more clearly, because the implicit rule is clashing with the explicit rule here, and some clarification would I'm sure cut down on the need for mod work.
It's really simple, don't advocate for violence.
For example, I just removed a comment from a Trump thread:
"Will no one rid us of this turbulent President?"
Seems innocuous, right? Nope, it's a call for assassination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F
Not allowed. It's an EDUCATED call for assassination, but still a call for assassination.
Other comments below it were more direct and also removed.
Right because hes one of the people who it's not okay to call for violence against. So no degree of structure that would harm him is acceptable to endorse.
Whereas for certain other people, suggesting they shouldn't be killed is a de facto call for violence against some of thwse protected groups.
Im just suggesting if you clarified who is on which list, people would be a lot better at self censoring and make less work for you. You can't blame people for failing to obey such complex rules when theyre not laid out clearly.
No, it's not OK to call for violence against ANYONE. Full stop. There is no list of "OK to threaten this person or group, but not these others."
The only stuff that slides are the comments that never get reported. Mods are volunteers and we have lives, we aren't reading every comment looking to fuck with threads.
We DO read every report and take actions based on them.
Are you going to remove comments saying "Israel has a right to self defence"? As Israeli "self defence" means murdering civilians by any means available.
No, because every country has the right to self defense, that is not a call to violence.
Aren't Palestinians having right to self defence?
Sure they do, but their self defense in the real world has absolutely nothing to do with our community rules.
They cannot advocate for killing Israelis in our group any more than Israelis can advocate for killing Palestinians. We DO NOT allow that shit.
We control what we can in the groups we moderate, we don't moderate the real world, that's outside our responsibility.
Do you accept that IDF is an occupying force and therefore Palestinians have right to kill IDF soldiers - and call for IDF to be killed?
They can, BUT NOT IN OUR COMMUNITES.
Get this through your thick head:
Online forums are not the real world. They have their own rules and guidelines. What you do in the real world and what you are allowed to say in one of our forums ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Because you are a Zionist and you only allow Israel to claim "self defence" as per your other comment?
Get it through your thick skull: Palestinians calling for killing IDF is a self defence. Israel calling for "self defence" is not a self defence at all - it is a call to murder yet more civilians including children.
Actions matter, sweetie.
Not a zionist, read my own posts and comments in the communities.
If you advocate to kill Palestinians, your comments will ALSO be removed.
Of course you aren't, sweetie.
You just said you wouldn't remove "Israel has right to defend themselves" statements which is nothing else but advocating to kill Palestinians, so stop lying.
Israel absolutely has the right to defend themselves, and that has nothing to do with the genocide in Gaza. When a hostile country shoots missiles at you, any country has the right to respond.
I guess you weren't paying attention:
Before the current conflict that Israel started:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war
Both countries had been poking each other for decades. Most recently:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus
Which resulted in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel
In turn:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran
and then...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Ismail_Haniyeh
But lets not forget:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran
I'd like to say it would all stop if Israel would, you know, stop killing people, but history shows it won't.
Oh, a genocide apologist.
You now need to ban yourself, hypocrite.
Tell me you didn't read any of the links without telling me you didn't read any of the links.
Again, nothing to do with genocide. When Israel gets attacked by Iran, they have the right to defend themselves. Same when Iran gets attacked by Israel. That's the whole point of being a sovereign state. If you get attacked, you're allowed to respond.
Unless your argument is Israel has no right to exist? You aren't trying to argue that, right?
They are not (yet) trying to commit genocide in Iran. Give it 20 years, maybe. They have their hands full with the genocide in Gaza, then they still have the West Bank, Golan, probably Syria as a whole after Golan, and Lebanon.
Assuming the UN allows it to continue, it's only a matter of time before they get to Iran, but it's not happening yet. But then the UN is pretty fucking toothless when it comes to Israeli war crimes.
It is either lack of comprehension or lack of reading skills?
Read again what "Israel has a right to defend themselves" really means. Slowly.
Now, in Israeli-speach "defend themselves" is the same what in a "final solution" was in German speach.
But you know all that, my little genocide apologist, don't you?
Let me try with a logic gate puzzle:
When any country gets attacked, they have a right to respond. We can agree on that, yes?
Israel is a country.
Israel got attacked by Iran.
Both indisputable facts.
So the response is, Israel has the right to defend itself.
Unless you want to argue:
or:
or:
Then your argument doesn't make sense. You're trying to twist it into being about the Genocide in Gaza, that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about Israel's legitimate response to having rockets fired at them from Iran and Iran's legitimate response to being bombed by Israel.
When a country gets attacked, they have the right to respond. You could even take it a step further and say they have an obligation to respond. If your country gets attacked repeatedly and you never respond, do you even HAVE a country at that point?
Read again. Slowly. You little genocide apologist.
Read again:
Countries that get attacked are allowed to defend themselves. That has nothing to do with perpetuating a genocide, which Israel is doing in Gaza.
It DOES have to do with being attacked by Iran.
One is a legitimate defense, one is an illegal war of aggression. I really don't think you can tell the difference.
centrists are looking at the genocide in Gaza and are using "Israel has a right to protect itself" IN THAT CONTEXT to justify the genocide in Gaza. You know this.
They never used it to justify they genocide, they DID use it to justify continuing to support Israel.
As long as Iran keeps rattling the saber about wanting to destroy Israel, we will keep funding and supplying Israel, regardless of the absolutely evil shit they keep doing.
Israel exists, largely, because of the United States and no US President will ever walk away from that.
Considering that they used it to describe netanyahu's actions in Gaza, they were doing absolutely nothing else and you know it.
Gloat more.
Oh, you did gloat more.
Read again. Slowly:
Israeli "defence" is a code sentence for aggression and genocide. Like "final solution" was previous nazis' code sentence for genocide.
Palestinians have right to defend themselves by killing (and making calls to kill) IDF aggressors. This is their right under international law.
You therefore should remove any references to Israeli "right to defence". Unless of course you are either:
So, which one is it sweetie?
Well ive seen quite a few calls for and defenses of things that get people killed.
I've seen your server called a 'safe space for zionism'. Repeatedly. You shelter and propagate violence. You are violent.
Actual total non-violence is an extrenely radical position, one i dont think you're taking, one i don't think you're brave enough to genuinely hold and take the shit for. One i may not be radical or brave enough to hold earnestly.
You accept, and favor, some violence. If you won't admit it; that's worse.
I'm sure there's TONS of stuff out there that gets missed. We all missed the anti-natalist community until the mod there decided to blow up a fertility clinic.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-05-20/fire-fascination-with-explosives-family-discord-marked-path-to-clinic-bombing
But what we don't miss is the shit that gets reported. There are tools in place to make sure all the mods in a group are notified if reports start stacking up.
But the stuff we miss because either a) we don't see it or b) it's not reported, doesn't mean we're going to apologize for the shit we DO remove.
I think you do support violence, and your replies elsewhere confirn that. You just like to use cutesy words and convoluted mechanisms so you're alienated from it's exercise and distanced from its responsibility.
Nobodys blaming you for the anti natalist guy. That one was fucking weird.
You have absolutely no idea what I do and do not support because nobody yet has asked me how I personally feel. :) My Personal opinions don't enter into it, if they did, that would be bad moderation.
Personally, my opinion on Israel and Gaza is the genocide will continue until either a) every last Palestinian is dead or b) Someone has the balls to invade Israel, disarm them, force them to stop and arrest and execute every war criminal involved from the lowliest IDF soldier all the way up to Netanyahu himself.
No country on earth is willing to do b. So take a wild guess what the end result will be? Should to be that way? Absolutely not, but again, nobody has the will to make the necessary change to make it happen.
Personally, my opinion on Ukraine and Russia is that no people fights harder than when they're overturning a foreign invasion. Properly armed, Ukraine will RUIN Russia.
But the key bit there is "properly armed" and the Republicans running the US absolutely do not want that to happen. We can change that in the '26 election, we WON'T, but it would be nice if we did.
But if someone comes into my groups advocating for the execution of Netanyahu, I will remove that comment because it violates the rules of the community. The community does not exist to promulgate violence, regardless how how I personally feel about it.
I think i mightve waaaay upthread, but you did kind of explicitly say a little more recently.
Then let a large language model do it. Or is that a complete fucking shit show every time someone tries?
See, this is where i think we disagree on that. Youve got a very 19th century view of war here. I think if you skipped the bullshit show trials til you were mostly done, a much leaner organization could get that done. I dont think state monopolies on violence are worth sacrificing an entire people to.
I think if the zionists started seeing their foreign tourists killed, their food imports poisoned, even their weapons backfiring at more than the usual rate, this could be actually ended.
Edit: i dont even think most of it needs to be tightly coordinated. I think if they're just spontaneously murdered coming back from getting beer at a stadium, and everyobe stops helping them to cheer, once the annoubcer clarifies who/why? If a foreign made toy car gets made out of an ingot of something originally labelled 'drop and run' and a little 'free palestine' engraved on the inside, gets delivered to a day care the zionist parliament sends its kids to? I think those deaths woukd do more to ending the genocide than a million soldier-on-soldier deaths. Saying that cant be called for is advocating for continuing the genocide.
Yeah they're super fucked. It's not cool. Bullshit rigged election wont change that. Europe may or may not. Not placing any bets.
But im not sure the russian army needs to fall here. I know at tye start of tgis shit show, it was conscripts who didnt want to be there being driven by a massive machine of domestic repression. I think, unlike the zionists, there's a small handful of old rich shit heads in russia, and maybe a couple buildings full of bureaucratic momemtum, that could have gone away and solved the whole thing in a few hours, and other problems besides. Maybe still are.
And i think the massive numbers of dead, of fields polluted with bombs, of more expensive sunflower seeds, of production and greenhouse gas and horrible trauma turned towards killing each other, is largely the outcome of your statist ideology.
The idea that wars are between armies, despite civilians doing most of the suffering. The whole general map-game-y bullshit view of geopolitics.
The idea that the government, even a repressive totalitarian government, can be equated with its people.
The idea that 'leaders' are somehow sacred and inviolable, and that those who build and operate the machinery of power are personally blameless
Please don't mention 'trials' to me; you know thats bullshit fantasy nonsense. Systems of strict axiom breed lies; ask anyone raised by strict parents.
I would literally rather open my own wrists than turn over any part of my daily responsibility, in real life or on lemmy, to a large language model.
We used to have a bot that posted fact check stats in every post, people hated that. You think they'd stand to be moderated by an LLM? Yeah, that's NEVER going to happen, at least not here.
Look at all the problems algorithmic moderation causes on YouTube or Facebook. Granted they're so many times bigger than lemmy it's not even funny, but I also don't see any other way for them to do moderation due to their size. 🤷♂️ It's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Yep. But onto the rest of what i said...