“Hey everyone, look at my juvenile attempts at statistics! Look how obviously bad some people seem when I do a shit job at it while ALSO failing to apply any context of the domain being studied to my thoughts, let alone to my ‘calculations’ and conclusions!”

This is a terrible metric from the fucking jump. And you did a shit job of it from there. Fuck you, truly.

[Edit: love how ya closed with “so who’s weirder guyz, the marxists, the furries, or the db0s?!” Just painfully obvious how you started the whole shebang, you hate all of the groups lol, because you’re a dumb asshole and not very happy about being one. Just remember, the option is always yours to simply shut the fuck up and read, then think, instead.]

What happens if we do a ratio of bans vs number of users?

We get a graph that compares two unrelated values?

Unless this data is purely internal instance user bannings, ‘Per capita’ has no effective meaning. As the pawb.social case shows: it’s all one user with multiple communities who regularly bans waves of sockpuppet brigades. Even the people catching strays or otherwise goes to show it has nothing to do with ‘the furries’.

Likewise I wager the SJW bans are effectively one community banning essentially one user who periodically spams accounts.

What is it about dbzer0 that makes them such prolific banners?

That whole painfully public fued against db0 over their stance on zionism may have something to do with it. Like the fake neo-nazi shit being spread against db0 that was just going on this week. It’s a wild question to have in light of all that, quite frankly.

Alternative view: Why is dbzer0 the only instance that holds people accountable for their actions? Why are all other instances letting things slide?

I just had my first reprimand and banning from a community for the first time in the 3 or so years I’ve been on Lemmy.

I don’t regret it.

I had no idea that Lemmy.ml believed the Uhygur genocide was a hoax. I decided to block all of Lemmy.ml as a result.

Did you go by total bans or only instance bans when they are admins?

Because if it was total bans, then I can think of admins of two other sites who’d be over 300

@rimu@piefed.social

i expected blahaj.zone to have more bans since as far as i know its supposed to be a safe place and less tolerant of transphobia (along with there being no downvotes to bury hateful comments and posts)

I’d be curious about stats on downvoting as well. Anecdotally, downvote frequency seems to vary by community. Personally, I don’t downvote for differences of opinion, and instead withhold upvotes, with downvotes reserved for blatantly toxic behavior. The etiquette across Lemmy seems varied, though.

dbzer0 literally has a community aimed at calling out power tripping mods, and instance admins regularly comment there to call out power tripping mods.

I’ve never have been worried by being banned there by just normal posting.

As they have already told you. This does not take into account the amount of harassment that some instances and communities have to endure.

i’m interested in seeing data of only bans (preferably just sitebans, but if that’s not possible all their bans would be fine) by admins. commag moderation style has a lot more leeway

its so funny how people complained about blahaj, the trans instance yet they dont ban very high at all, i suspect its alot of transphobic comments being directed towards the instance that are getting people banned.

blahaj is up there likely due to signicant transphobia too.

I don’t think this is terribly meaningful. Do you take into account unmoderated communities? Some communities and mods are also more ban happy than others, so one instance can have communities that very rarely ban and ones that ban a lot, and how big those communities are will also vary.

A more meaningful analysis would try to measure the impact of ban-happy communities by adjusting for their size/activity or would compare individual communities.

Edit: Some communities or mods also get harassed a lot and therefore need to be more ban happy (like womens stuff), but I don’t think accounting for that would be within the scope of what you’re looking at, but it’s worth being aware of.

Well it makes complete sense. ML, dbzero and the furries are instances that committed to upholding their code of conducts which moderates and bans people for antisocial behaviors like transphobia and racism for example, while instances like world and sjw are known to rarely if ever ban or moderate people for things like that to the point instances like beehaw had to defederate from them so they wouldnt get swarn by their unmoderated users

I don’t really see a problem with an instance banning large numbers of users.

The ability to make exclusive spaces is part of the fediverse’s design. Suppose a queer space kept getting flooded with homophobic users, or a Muslim space got a bunch of people shitting on their religion, or something like that. Naturally, such spaces would have a higher number of bans. That doesn’t necessarily show an “echo chamber” especially since users of such communities may be federated with other communities. People complain about censorship on .ml creating an “echo chamber” but half the time I’m arguing or discussing things on other turfs like .world.

The idea that those sorts of enclaves or exclusive spaces shouldn’t exist, as is implied with the framing here, is to impose what us evil, dastardly “authoritarians” sometimes call “the tyranny of structurelessness.” No one would have a space to discuss things outside of the most prominent, hegemonic view, which would more easily sideline and overwhelm other perspectives.

As an example, I once frequented an utter cesspool on Reddit called r/CapitalismVSocialism, which was created and promoted by An-caps and where that perspective was prominent (though not exclusive). I found it was virtually impossible to have a discussion with anyone about anything, because even if you weren’t talking to an An-cap, they were always there waiting to latch on to some turn of phrase and use it against you, and everyone was too preoccupied with countering their nonsense to reach any kind of high-level discussion. I eventually got fed up with that and found that my beliefs were more challenged by going to explicitly leftist spaces because we had shared assumptions and were speaking the same language, and didn’t feel the need to be as defensive. I was never going to be convinced of anything by the An-caps and all talking to them accomplished was pissing me off.

The fediverse’s design is actually quite brilliant, because you can have a space to discuss things substantively among like-minded people while at the same time interacting with other groups.

Is this permanent bans and/or temporary bans?

What makes you so sure the moderators are the problem, and not users? Maybe assholes gravitate toward certain instances, or people just don’t bother to check whether an instance’s rules match how tend to they post.