Comic Strips

21304 readers

2346 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world

[meta] pls stop banning people (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 5 days ago by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheV2@programming.dev 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

In that case I have a few doubts:

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?
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.

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

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".

[–] TheV2@programming.dev 3 points 5 days 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.

[–] Sergio@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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?