for these reasons:

  • The enshittification topic is not a Solar Punk topic
  • The moderator:
    • has contempt for privacy in a relatively privacy-centric forum
    • is oppressive
    • uses censorship to control the narrative and silence viewpoints
    • practices selective enforcement (censors civil comments while permitting off-topic threadcrap that reinforces the mod’s viewpoint)
    • is non-transparent (witholds specific rationale for mod actions)

It’s great to have thematic instances like slrpnk.net which are in short supply amid the ocean of general purpose nodes. It’s of course good for thematic nodes to stay close to their “constitution” (declared purpose). The relevance of tech enshittification to solar punk is a tenuous stretch and very slight at best. To keep with the theme, admins might want to consider locking the forum to prevent new threads while keeping the history of posts in reach for a while for archival purposes.

If it is decided that enshitification is fitting enough to keep, consider replacing the moderator who does not represent solar punk values. Oppressive tyrannical types are not a good representation for slrpnk.net.

  • freedomPusher@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
    1·
    16 days ago

    So this is either a technical glitch or an admin on your own instance sopuli.xyz removed in locally from your instance only.

    Woah, holy shit. I am quite baffled that you were able to post an URL to a slrpnk.net-hosted page showing that it is not censored. I saw an entry in the modlog of the community, so I am confused on that. It seemed clear that the comment was censored from the slrpnk side. If it was censored from someone other than a mod or admin of slrpnk.net, that opens up possible tyrannical actions I was not even aware of.

    And I must say, the Lemmy software is garbage if it can present a “modlog” that reflects actions by foreign instances without attributing actions of those instances. The modelog looks like a log local to the hosting instance. For that reason, I am somewhat skeptical of your claim that it was a remote censorship.