this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
-1 points (47.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
595 readers
302 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
- Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment).
- Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction.
- Don't use private communications to prove your point. We can't verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don't deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin' in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, this is one where the subject is kinda beat to death.
Blanket down voting is a shitty thing, and it is completely appropriate for mods to ban people that do it
However, they should have a definitive criteria for what thresholds they use to determine what is and isn't blanket down voting.
Myself, I down vote stuff on there that's either off topic for the place, or stuff that's utter bullshit, and/or stuff that's YouTube drek because the YouTube drek is never sourced well. A link to a video is way too likely to be bullshit when it comes down to fad, niche, or weird diets.
Which means I end up down voting more than I do otherwise.
And, there's very rarely any posts worth engaging in.
By the apparent metrics, I should have already been banned. Which means that the apparent metrics don't match what's being used in practice.
However! I think that's less PTB and more "clueless" mods that don't have experience running a controversial community. The more controversial the subject is, the clearer you have to be with how, when, and why you're going to take action, unless you want to end up on a community like this one, lol.
I've noticed this pattern, I think its kinda rude, I take time to find a really good topical video on onboarding to carnivore and your downvoting it because its a youtube video, regardless of the quality of the video - in this case it was a board certified obesity doctor talking about starting carnivore? Did you even open the video before downvoting?
Conversational videos have value for people who are interested in the community theme
Not required to watch videos to vote on them.
They may be topical, and they all seem to be.
But the ugly truth is that nobody making a YouTube video on almost anything provides anything more than their word that they're using well vetted information. When someone is making health claims, the standard is way higher than when they're casually talking about RC cars, or juggling
You may not be aware, but even board certified doctors can be full of shit. Plenty of doctors choose to make and sell outright scam products, while using their licence as the basis for their claims.
Now, if it were possible for a doctor to prove via demonstration on video that their claims are up to date, best practices, like you can with a chemistry video, or a woodworking video, it wouldn't fall under the drek category for me. I wouldn't down vote.
But they rarely can when making health claims. When they're making health claims that go against current best practices on diet, it is most definitely drek. You can't provide access to studies and the data behind them in that format unless you're sitting there reading the publications on screen.
Then, like you said, you took the time to find a topical video. You said nothing about finding a video, vetting its claims, finding opposing data and evaluating it. Which is the standard necessary when making health claims.
Why am I the arbiter of quality? I'm not the sole arbiter. But I am someone that has worked with bariatric patients, their doctors, their nutritionists. I'm someone that reads jama articles for fun, and tend to be willing to w ade through the jargon to understand why best practices are what they are.
So, a video making health claims is an automatic bad video because YouTube doesn't have the structure to give citations. Well, a channel could actually provide links in the description, or even list the citations. I've never seen one that does, and it's still not useful to expect that someone go to YouTube, then check for those citations, then go and find them. That's a bad post, even when topical. It's too many extra steps to find actual data to support a claim.
Conversational videos about health do not have value. That's regardless of what the conversation is.
Seriously, have you not run into any of the numerous jackass doctors selling their shit via infomercials, or hawking their own products in their practice, or ending up losing their licence for ignoring best practices? Just being a doctor does not mean you can make claims on YouTube and get a free pass on backing your shit up on YouTube.
With all of that in mind, it would be a waste of my time to go and watch a video to individually evaluate it for voting on lemmy. The general state of YouTube as a source is so poor that it can be dismissed entirely. It's like using Playboy magazine as a source because they interviewed a doctor.