Inside Gaza the small, densely populated strip of land is now packed with bodies. Families, fleeing repeatedly to escape offensives, bury their dead wherever possible.
if we’re lucky, there’s be a paragraph about it between to the paragraph about the trail of tears and the other paragraph about martin luther king jr in american history books.
I won’t reveal who reports who, but I will say it was someone else.
The civility rule is NOT ambiguous:
“Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members.”
All good but this moderation approach is censoring non-problematic content because some people have poor reading comprehension and/or don’t understand sarcasm.
I would expect them to get better instead of content getting diluted.
@eldavi@lemmy.ml did confirm that he did not report me, so this is literally some third party injecting themselves into a discussion. Either way, rules can be used by faith actors to stifle speech, that’s how it works on reddit. I would posit context should be counted when issuing removals.
if we’re lucky, there’s be a paragraph about it between to the paragraph about the trail of tears and the other paragraph about martin luther king jr in american history books.
But have you thought about rich Americans’ right to defend themselves, shitlord?
Removed, civility.
Which part was not civil?
Calling another user “shitlord”.
Did @eldavi@lemmy.ml report me?
Either way, it was sarcasm
the caustic use of words, often in a humorous way, to mock someone or something
I won’t reveal who reports who, but I will say it was someone else.
The civility rule is NOT ambiguous:
“Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members.”
All good but this moderation approach is censoring non-problematic content because some people have poor reading comprehension and/or don’t understand sarcasm.
I would expect them to get better instead of content getting diluted.
@eldavi@lemmy.ml did confirm that he did not report me, so this is literally some third party injecting themselves into a discussion. Either way, rules can be used by faith actors to stifle speech, that’s how it works on reddit. I would posit context should be counted when issuing removals.
It literally doesn’t matter who reported it, you broke the civility rule. Had I come across the comment organically I still would have removed it.
Don’t attack other users. Full stop.