Lemmy.world reportedly bans people for being anti-Zionist. At the same time, numerous human rights organizations have documented that Zionist policies and actions amount to crimes against humanity (e.g., forced displacement, collective punishment, apartheid).
If banning opposition to crimes against humanity is itself anti-humanity, doesn’t that make lemmy.world complicit? How do you reconcile defending a platform that silences critics while atrocities continue?
When the admins themselves take offense to anti-Zionist slogans without them being directed towards them, you can take their word for it that they are indeed what they are taking offense for
I have high doubts that Lemmy.world bans people specifically for being anti Zionist.
Context and number of incidents of ban is required.
Obligatory ‘Israel is a piece of shit country.’
I’ve found some evidence and posted it here:
Lemmy.world Is Anti‑Humanity. How Its Admins Weaponized Defederation to Silence Palestine Solidarity
Maybe I’m missing something, but that post just has a ton of claims and no screenshots or links to what it’s talking about.
Is lemmy.world anti-humanity for banning anti-Zionists?
The quick answer is: probably no. You claim this is the case, provide no receipts, and most importantly don’t place these terms into enough context. And context matters.
I don’t know if you’re right. You might be. I’m not excluding that possibility.
No instance is under any obligation to tolerate all opinions. Other admins may defederate, users may move away and block. All moderation decisions are shit. It’s much easier to have principles than to apply them equally everywhere and without fail.
If they have indeed chosen to err on the side of what I’m going to call something like antisemitic caution and remove stuff more broadly than you are comfortable with, it’s not just a question of values. It’s could also be a reflection of their experience with this topic, the resulting workload, and lack of moderation manpower. It’s much easier to ban all boobs than having to differentiate with each post if they’re breastfeeding or not, to put this in the context of past moderation problems. Facebook isn’t opposed to breastfeeding as a function to suckle our offspring but as the proprietors of their platform they can ban all boob related posts. And while this is of course within the realm of apples to oranges comparisons, I don’t think it’s justified to leap to the conclusion you did based on moderation decisions alone.
The last I’ve seen was this, but I remember before lemmy.world’s admin defederated from an entire instance over one user’s “death to all Zionists” display name. That user stepped down. The damage was done.
This was a political act. When a platform punishes critics of documented apartheid and ethnic cleansing more harshly than it punishes the apologists for those crimes, yes—that’s anti-humanity in practice. Complicity doesn’t require intent, just silence and a ban hammer.
edit: I’ve found more evidence and posted it here:
Lemmy.world Is Anti‑Humanity. How Its Admins Weaponized Defederation to Silence Palestine Solidarity
Wait, givesomefucks got promoted to mod? I haven’t specifically seen pro-Zionist comments from them, but this is the user that regularly comments trying to convince everyone how the Democratic party has seen ‘major reforms’ by electing a new leader months ago despite us continuing to see them capitulate to Republicans at nearly every turn.
Maybe the account is run by Chuck Schumer and OP here is completely correct.
I read through that last link and then the first comment is asking why this AI wall of text. There is also very little evidence meat on that bone. A user did this, a user got that. That’s not receipts, that’s just more claims.
The claims of censorship are non sensical to me. You can still post most of that stuff, just not on that instance. An instance isn’t a democracy and no one has the right to be heard there no matter what. Your right is to go elsewhere. It’s a living room sofa problem. If you came to my house and took a dump on my sofa, I’d kick you out too. As it is my house, I get to decide what constitutes a dump. You thought it was just a fart, I smelled a shart - you’re out anyway. You are free to go sit on somebody else’s sofa. Go somewhere else, vote with your feet. Sure, tell others about my tight ass sofa rules. You still haven’t convinced me of your OG conclusion.
I’m still not excluding the possibility that there is something rotten in the state of Lemmy dot world. Maybe that admin is indeed on a power trip. What a decade on reddit and now a few years on Lemmy have shown me is that most bans are not shot from the hip. “I just said maybe Israel isn’t so nice and got banned IMMEDIATELY,” professed the user innocently. And then the admin comes back with three documented community violations including threatening the moderators with violence. Exceptions are rare. If you had a “no violence” rule, then “death to Zionists” would be functionally the same as “death to all little old ladies,” a no-go. You don’t get to decide what constitutes a dump and since the fediverse is larger than Lemmy dot world you’re also not being censored.
We need to ask the rationale for the decisions. I am very much opposed to any genocide, whether by direct action, a third party or inaction. If Zionist practices are leading to genocide then I need to call it out. If Israels current practice is to create genocide then I need to call it out. I can do all that and not be Anti-Semitic or anti Israel.
If any Lemmy instance removes the debate, they need to be left in the cold or closed down.
The problem is, Israeli far-right groups and Zionist advocates have spent decades turning “antisemitic” into a shield. You call out forced displacement, apartheid, collective punishment—all well documented by Amnesty, B’Tselem, and Human Rights Watch—and they call you an antisemite. It’s an old trick, and it works.
So when a platform like lemmy.world bans “anti-Zionists,” they’re buying into that same smear. They’re not separating bigotry from basic human rights criticism. That means you literally can’t speak out against genocide there without being branded an antisemite. The only way to say “stop the genocide” is to wear that label as a badge of honor. And that’s exactly the point: any platform that forces you to accept a false accusation just to state the obvious is complicit.
That isn’t limited to right wing or far right groups. Plenty of liberal Zionists who are still hiding behind the anti semitism claim. I guess admitting that you spent most of your life shilling for apartheid and genocide must be tough.
I completely agree. There was an analogy used at work some years ago. If we decided to call a dogs tail a leg, would that mean that all dogs have five legs? The answer is ridiculously simple. Dogs have four legs and a tail. The names used make no difference. In this case, if Israel is committing genocidal acts, then that is just a straight fact. Renaming objection as anti-Semitic does not take away the fact of the genocide.
Restricting certain forms of speech can be interpreted in two ways: As suppression of legitimate political critique. Or as boundary-setting to prevent generalizations or escalation.
Whether specific political positions are restricted depends not on how you see them, but on how moderators classify them. “Anti-Zionism” is not a single, defined category. It ranges from policy criticism against Israel, to positions that some moderators may interpret as targeting jews.
Give an explicit, specific example of anti-zionism that can be interpreted as “targeting jews”.
Additional note: Your framing is somewhat binary, relying on a “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” logic. I understand the emotions that come with this topic, but your logic reduces complex positions to two options despite the existence of intermediate views. Nuanced actors might then be pushed into opposing camps, therefore intensifying conflict.
Edit, for context: Damned be Israel for everything they are doing right now. I am just trying to maintain some discourse quality.
