I noticed in the last few days, at least two very active posters got banned:

  • @Laguriz@piefed.social
  • @foyuka@sh.itjust.works

They are probably new people here trying out the fediverse because a friend recommended it to them, seeing that it’s lal not-so-active as they’re used from other sites, trying to populate it with content, and getting banned for it.

As far as i can see, they didn’t post highly-controversial stuff or sth. Just random and sometimes slightly-critical-of-society (but not very critical of society) comics, just as good comics should do IMO. I don’t see why they got banned?

This is not how the fediverse becomes popular among the population. This is how to convey an elitist look of “being sceptical towards new users”.

  • TheV2@programming.dev
    7·
    1 day ago

    In that case I have a few doubts:

    1. Why is the given ban reason for these accounts “bot”, when that doesn’t describe the actual issue here, and why isn’t there a clear transparent explanation how these accounts were identified as part of this self-destruction scheme?
    2. What exactly is the issue with self-destructing accounts other than losing the comments, discussions, etc. associated with the posts? Because if that’s the only thing, I don’t see the severity.
    • Iced Raktajino@startrek.website
      13·
      1 day ago

      What exactly is the issue with self-destructing accounts other than losing the comments, discussions, etc. associated with the posts? Because if that’s the only thing, I don’t see the severity.

      It’s unfair to anyone and everyone who participates. It’s a PITA to save a post to have it just disappear later. Or remember a post and want to go back to it only to find it self-nuked. Yeah, some stuff may get modded but at least there’s a usually correct and valid reason attached. The people doing this and self-destructing are basically unmarked spambots. I fucking hate bots.

      The disposable troll account elsewhere in the comments here said “Content is king” which is the only thing in their statement I agree with. Well, when that content is ephemeral, then it’s not really “content”.

      • Sergio@piefed.socialEnglish
        3·
        21 hours ago

        when that content is ephemeral, then it’s not really “content”.

        I personally agree, but I can see how others might not. I never used 4chan, but wasn’t it like that? People used temporary names, and content was deleted after a short while?

      • TheV2@programming.dev
        2·
        23 hours ago

        I can see the issue with spam-bots, regardless of the self-nuking, and how especially this community is targeted. But I wouldn’t consider the accounts marked in this post as spam-bots at all.

        If this community or instance considers a couple of posts a day, perhaps specifically from new users, spamming, then as a user I’d expect that rule to be written before actions are taken.

        In general, I’m not disputing the actions of the mods and I hate to be the guy who expects something from people who contribute to this platform in their free-time, but for these kind of bans based on suspicions and patterns, I just wish there would at least be more transparent communication.