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.
Can you elaborate? Why is there legitimate value in censoring my viewpoint? You want to generalize that most people don’t care about privacy (perhaps true, but it’s IMO an injustice to take this assumption as rationale for suppression of expression on the part of privacy advocates and historians)… that (without their input) their new identity can be tied to their past identity, and it’s okay for this generalisation to oppress people who want the contrary — so much so that it is okay to suppress the fact that a counter (privacy-respecting) viewpoint exists?
They’re usually tying their identities together themselves. You’re conflating changing your name to match your gender with using pseudonyms and are drawing questionable conclusions from that. Chelsea could also have pseudonyms that we don’t know of where she did/said other stuff but wanted to remain unknown. That’s not the same and doesn’t mean she doesn’t care about privacy. Her being known for the leaks is already something public, she does not hide it. In fact, she clearly says she doesn’t want to be referenced by her deadname as someone else quoted here.
There’s a community guideline “stay on topic” which you clearly violated (though one could argue it’s been violated earlier in that thread). Insisting on calling trans people by their deadname can also easily be seen as transphobic, which is against the general slrpnk rules.