[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator (!movies@piefed.social being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post
You're viewing part of a thread.
Well but like I say, I think you made kind of a tactical error if you don't want stuff like that to happen. I have plenty of times seen a mod ban for some reason that almost everyone disagrees with. I have never seen a mod snoop on the upvotes for the banned comment and also attempt to ban people from expressing their approval for the banned content, and then send every one of them a snotty DM about it. I think that's very obviously an overreach, and there is sort of a societal immune system that automatically wants to backlash against that kind of thing by marking the person who did it as "enemy" and making sure they hear about it that that behavior is unwanted. And of course the internet being what it is, sometimes that backlash takes on a life of its own and turns into something incredibly toxic and unwarranted. I think though that this idea that you'll set yourself apart from that kind of thing ever happening to you, because you can just run your own server and control everything about how people interact with you, is just a non starter. I think reexamining your own behavior is a lot more positive way to approach making sure you won't get harassed as much in the future.
IDK man, maybe I'm wrong or I missed finding out about some important details of how it happened. And for all I know some people did harass you in some out-of-pocket way. I'm just saying how I see it, that's all.
You know, I only tried the private message approach because someone suggested it was the best way to de-escalate. Before that, I would simply ban—no conversation, no debate.
On the servers I run myself, I go even further: I de-federate. No warnings. It’s clean, simple, and fast.
Where I misjudged things—and I see this clearly now—was in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They don’t. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, it’s best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation won’t lead anywhere productive.
So yes, messaging turned out to be a big waste of time. The real takeaway for me is simple: own the space, set clear expectations, and act quickly when problems arise.
I think the issue was banning for giving votes you didn't agree with, not with sending the DMs. I've sent DMs instead of doing admin actions before, just to open a dialogue, or to give people a chance to push back or explain before I take some kind of action, and that part seems fine. I can't even really articulate why it was that this rubbed people so badly the wrong way, but I think sending the DMs and getting in an extended back and forth did somehow make it worse. Definitely doubling down and banning people (and also DMing them) because their reaction and vote on it wasn't the "correct" and permitted one according to you made it worse.
People can vote. People can react. Setting yourself up as this lord and arbiter of what's right and wrong is always going to make a backlash. If it was me, I would have made a public reply instead of a DM so that other people can weigh in, I would have framed it in terms of "what I allow here" and made sure to clarify the rules on the sidebar instead of framing your point of view as the one that's objectively the right one (which you're still doing here, when you describe calling someone "bro" as "toxic" instead of saying that you personally think it's rude and don't allow it). And then if they still don't agree, you're still within your rights to just say yes okay fine but that's the rules, sorry, and ban them (and then move on yes).
I still think you would have gotten backlash, but framing it in that way would have at least shown you have some awareness that these categories and judgements are just your categories and judgements, and regardless of what the Lemmy software's mod controls have led you to believe, other people are allowed to have their own that are different from yours. If you'd done that I don't think it would have really developed to anything, there might have been one YPTB post about it at worst and then people would have shrugged and moved on with their day.
I’ll say this again: the DM wasn’t about a single vote. It was about endorsing toxic behaviour.
Now, about this word “bro.” On the surface, it comes across as casual, even friendly. But in practice, “bro” tends to be shorthand for a culture that excuses arrogance, entitlement, and pack mentality under the banner of camaraderie.
A “bro” is the person who laughs at cruelty because it’s entertaining. The one who treats someone else’s discomfort as sport. The one who believes inside jokes and mockery outweigh basic respect. That isn’t just harmless slang—it’s a posture that normalizes being inconsiderate.
So when people lean on the word “bro,” they’re not just using a throwaway expression. They’re reinforcing a culture built on lowest-common-denominator bonding, where aggression is rewarded, harm is brushed off, and civility is treated like weakness. That’s not a culture I want to foster in spaces I’m responsible for.
Now, you may disagree, and that’s fair. But this is my interpretation. And when everyone doubled down on “bro”—using it in the exact way I find problematic—it only confirmed for me that they were subscribing to bro culture. I don’t do bro, bruh, brah, or dudebro for good reason.
What struck me is that nobody asked why. They just assumed it was a quirk. But to me, it’s not a quirk—it’s a principle. Maybe these are simply my categories and judgements, but I believe the world genuinely needs fewer bros. Fewer Andrew Tates. Fewer Donald Trumps.
Yes, this is one of my lines in the sand. And the fact that so many people on Lemmy seem comfortable embracing “bro” as an identity—that, to me, is a real problem.
Sure. That's all your opinion. And the rest of Lemmy is letting you know how they plan to react, when instead of trying to convince them of that while respecting their ability to make up their own mind at the end of the day, you ban them for expressing even a hint of any other viewpoint, and insist that they're being bad.
I don't even think your viewpoint is crazy or wrong or anything, but bouncing on mod controls and insisting to people implicitly that they're being "toxic" if they think anything different even if they literally didn't mean anything wrong or offensive, and there's a 0% chance that their viewpoint has any validity and 100% that yours is the objectively right viewpoint, isn't going to make progress on turning people around to it.
Good luck with your instance I guess.
If Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed.
If Lemmy will not fix its bro culture, then I will defederate Lemmy.
I believe not all of Lemmy is bro culture. But for those servers that are fine with bro culture, I will de-federate them.
Cool story bro
This is a super weird take. Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instances. Our instance, for example, has a really high percentage of users with ADHD, ASD and other neurodivergences. We also have a ton of LGBTQI+ folks. So all I'm saying is don't be too quick to paint Lemmy users with a broad brush.
If Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed.
Lemmy isn't about creating a monoculture with a fixed set of values. It's about having diverse communities and instances with their own sets of values and rules. That's the beauty of Lemmy and the fediverse. Demanding that we adopt and police some universal "politeness" code across every instance that prohibits the use of the word "bro" simply because that's what you want is really quite a bizarre notion. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates. So no, it doesn't need to be fixed. It is working as intended. Diversity is a big strength of the fediverse. We actively don't want such things in place, because that's what happened at places like Reddit, owned by big corpos who suddenly decided they wanted everything advertiser friendly for their IPO.
If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you. But c'mon... all this judgmental language against whole communities of people simply because some folks dared to disagree with your opinion on this topic? It seems like the only thing you have done in this post is make yourself seem even more unreasonable about the topic. None of your responses show a trace of self-reflection, or acceptance of the different perspectives that were shared with you, which is kinda disappointing. If you adopt the position that you are always right and everyone who criticizes you is wrong, then what does that make you? You should do some self crit.
Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instances… so don’t paint with a broad brush.
I never said Lemmy lacked diversity. I explicitly wrote that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. My point was about specific servers that embrace that culture. Those are the ones I will de-federate from. That’s not a broad brush—it’s a filter.
Demanding that we adopt and police some universal ‘politeness’ code… is a bizarre notion.
I didn’t demand anything universal. That’s a strawman. I’m not lobbying for every instance to adopt my preferences. I said my server will have standards, and I will apply them consistently. That’s the very opposite of imposing uniformity—it’s me choosing how I run my space.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates.
On the contrary, it shows I understand it perfectly. Federation is built on choice. The right to set boundaries for my server—including who I federate with—is not a misunderstanding, it’s the entire point of federation.
So no, it doesn’t need to be fixed. It is working as intended.
You misread my statement. I didn’t say Lemmy needs fixing outright. I said: if Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed. That’s a conditional. It only applies in the hypothetical scenario where bro culture is inseparable from Lemmy.
We actively don’t want such things in place, because that’s what happened at Reddit…
Again, this ignores what I wrote. I’m not calling for top-down enforcement or advertiser-friendly sanitization. I’m calling for exercising my own discretion on my own server. That’s literally the opposite of Reddit’s centralized approach.
If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you.”
Exactly. That’s what I said I would do. I’m glad you recognize that, but your comment tries to paint that decision as unreasonable when it’s actually how the Fediverse is designed to function.
All this judgmental language against whole communities…
That’s projection. I didn’t condemn all communities, just those that embrace a style I don’t want to interact with. There’s nothing “judgmental” about drawing lines for the environment I’m responsible for maintaining. Every server admin does this, even if they call it by softer names.
You’ve made yourself seem unreasonable… no trace of self-reflection.
That’s an unfair characterization. Self-reflection is exactly why I framed my statement with an if. I left room for nuance, acknowledged diversity, and clarified my standards. You ignored those elements and replaced them with a caricature.
If you adopt the position that you are always right… you should do some self-crit.
Nobody said I’m always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. That’s not about being universally “right.” It’s about being consistent with the principles I believe in. If that’s not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you don’t have to engage with me at all.
Nobody said I’m always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. That’s not about being universally “right.” It’s about being consistent with the principles I believe in.
While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards [those who] disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
For example, in regard to people who (perfectly reasonably) responded negatively towards your private messages, you said:
Where I misjudged things—and I see this clearly now—was in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They don’t. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, it’s best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation won’t lead anywhere productive.
And the only reason you had for calling those users "toxic" is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy? They are not the toxic ones in this scenario.
A “bro” is the person who laughs at cruelty because it’s entertaining. [...]
I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word "bro", or "sis" or basically anything else. All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
If that’s not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you don’t have to engage with me at all.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them aren't to my taste.
While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
Pointing out where I draw boundaries isn’t disdain—it’s clarity. I’ve said repeatedly that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. What I won’t do is pretend that dismissive behaviour (“cool story bro”) is just harmless slang. That’s not disdain, that’s naming behaviour for what it is.
And the only reason you had for calling those users ‘toxic’ is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy?”*
That’s not accurate. I didn’t call people toxic simply for disagreeing. I said if someone shows signs of being toxic or openly supports toxic behaviour, I take them at their word. That’s different from disagreement. You’re collapsing behaviour and disagreement into the same thing, and they’re not.
A ‘bro’ is the person who laughs at cruelty because it’s entertaining… I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word ‘bro.’
This isn’t hyperbole. “Bro” is rarely neutral in practice. It has consistent cultural functions:
That’s not me inventing baggage out of thin air—it’s how the word is used in real contexts.
All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
No. I’m not vilifying people for disagreement. I’m drawing a line against behaviours and tones that diminish others. That’s the job of an admin: curating the space they’re responsible for. The word “bro” as commonly used isn’t just “a commonplace word.” It’s a cultural signal that often carries exclusion, mockery, or fake intimacy. That’s why I’m flagging it.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them aren’t to my taste.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. That’s a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—every admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that I’m somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesn’t exist.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. That’s a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—every admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that I’m somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesn’t exist.
Our users can vote admins and mods out if they want to. They also vote on any rule changes. That's how a community should function. That's how we do checks and balances to prevent abuse of admin powers, such as enforcing my personal opinions on all our users. I'd last about 1 day if I started doing that. So no, it undercuts nothing, and now you are just trying to score pointless debating points so I'll leave it at that.
I mean definitely get mine first if this glass palace stuff is what yours is all about, this seems to be a hill you want to die on. Problem is it also seems to have been both painstakingly built and maintained by yourself and no one else.
Its getting weird dude, let it go (and yes dude is gender neutral)
You don't like "Bro-culture". That's a description of a specific sort of gross social movement. You are extending that dislike to a ubiquitous word that only has that connotation when used as a descriptor of "Bro-culture-Bros".
The word itself and it's common usage have nothing to do with that, it's one of the most commonly used, informal, globally-colloquial expressions in our current era.
It's like getting mad at the word right cause it's part of right-wing, and people use it all the time to indicate direction which is causing a rise of global fascism. It's not just silly, it's a common reason for you to have an argument with a person.
It's not an opinion, it's a little loaded argument gun you always have cocked, it's really silly and obvious you just like to argue and this is a pit trap full of sharpened spikes. Grow up.
That's just one reason. Another reason I don't like "bro" is because it's often used as a diminisher. Chill out, bro. Don’t take it so seriously, bro. It’s shorthand for brushing someone off, trivializing their feelings, or cutting them down while pretending it’s casual. That dynamic doesn’t build respect—it erodes it.
Also, “bro” creates a sense of fake familiarity. It gets used to imply closeness that isn’t there, as if a single word can override the need for trust or mutual understanding. That kind of assumed intimacy often feels presumptive and even manipulative, especially in spaces where people don’t know each other well.
So basically there's three solid reasons to not allow bro-talk.
There's one reason to use the word "bro", which I find perfectly acceptable: if someone is a literal sibling. Otherwise, you don't need it. It shouldn't be in your vocabulary.
Be that as it may, you may disagree. In which case there's several Lemmy servers in which it's perfectly allowable—but not mine.
EDIT: And while we're at it, there's two more reasons to avoid bro-talk:
I empathize and agree with a lot of your points. I see where your coming from. I do find a lot of "bro" talk to come across really cringe.
However, I think you are making an error by banning people for it. If ultimately you're goal is to build communities and have interesting conversations, then banning people for what is socially widely accepted removes the ability to build connections and learn from others from a wide swath of people. You are essentially quarantining yourself and closing yourself off from others by drawing very innocuous lines in the sand. You're limiting your community to only people that are okay with incredibly controlled language and incredibly controlled communities. This diminishes your ability to learn from others, have interesting conversations, and be challenged by new information. A lot of people that might otherwise want to make a connection with you, will find such a strict line so ridiculous they will discount everything else you say because they find you to be so unreasonable.
Also, not everyone uses bro as a deminisher or even gendered, many people do see themselves as being siblings to everyone, all humans are family and saying "bro" is a way of reminding others that we are all connected. You are ultimately harming yourself more than anyone else.
And you've fallen in the pit
I'm not stepping in your stupid, childish, argument trap, you are doing this because you like typing all these words. Again grow the hell up and maybe give your wrist a break.