this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
847 points (90.9% liked)

/0 Governance

328 readers
2 users here now

A community for discussion and democratic decision making in the Divisions by zero.

Anyone with voting rights can open a governance thread and initiate a vote or a discussion. There's no special keywords you must be aware of before you open a thread, but there are some. here's the governance thread manual.

Answers

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

We, the admin team, decry all forms of settler-colonialism, and we recognize that Zionism is a pro-settler-colonialist position.

Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.

Please upvote for agree, downvote for disagree.

Note: we only count votes by instance members of dbzer0 and anarchist.nexus, plus a few vouched-for external users.


Hi mateys, I've kept things simple in the above text, for brevity, but in fact it took the admin team quite a while to get to this stage. We have discussed the policy change extensively, and a variety of different perspectives emerged. I will attempt to sum them up below as best I can:

  • The "this isn't that complicated" school of thought goes something like this: If someone is consistently posting comments that mirror Hasbara talking points (e.g. justifying the genocide in Gaza, consistently painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as the victim), then they should be instance banned. It's just not acceptable for Zionists to be allowed on our instances.

  • The "slippery slope" / "purity test" school of thought is that banning people for having an "unpopular" political opinion would potentially mean banning half the fediverse, if more and more of these policies were enacted over time. To attempt to mitigate this we are keeping the scope of this rule as narrow as possible, and I also don't think many of our users will be affected. Also, we typically don't have frequent policy changes, and I have no reason to expect that to change moving forward.

  • Another important discussion point was "how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not?" We can't always be 100% sure of someone's true intentions, we can only go on what they have posted and that is subject to interpretation. I don't feel there is an easy answer to this one, except to say that we would have to be pretty certain before issuing a perma-ban.

  • The "geopolitics don't matter" school of thought is that trying to be on the "correct" side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don't bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.

Please add your comments below if you want to provide your own thoughts on the topic, or have any questions.

expiry: 7

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

sorry. peanut gallery here but im curious what spurred it. Im not sure I have encountered anyone with a pro zionist viewpoint on the fediverse. The closest I have seen to pro israel is more im staying out of it either because of the way the whole area is or the ive got problems of my won in my own country and if we fix them then can worry internationally. I will admit I don't click on posts that seem rediculous by the title and I think I have seen some "news" posts were its like. yeah. right.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gsdsam@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

100% - no place for zionism on our ship!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZeroGravitas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How is zionist content even compatible with the golden rules of our instance? To be clear, I'm not against adding it explicitly to the list in rule 4, as it makes for a stronger stance, but I'm surprised this is up for debate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Are we talking about banning them from posting/commenting on dbzer0 or banning them so no one on dbzer0 can see their posts/comments on any instances? If it's the former I'm for it, if it's the latter I'm against it.

I don't like seeing fuckers like that go unchallenged. If everyone willing to debunk their bullshit is on an instance that bans them and can't see what they write they'll always get the last word, influencing people on other instances.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the proposal, I'm still not 100% sure exactly what an instance ban does.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Nora@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To be honest, I suspect most Zionists are just bots anyway, and I barely ever see comments like that to begin with, so I don't really see any negatives of a policy like this. I'll admit to not being as frequently online the last couple weeks so maybe I'm just not paying enough attention, but yeah I think it's probably good to at least have that all in writing as a rule we can point towards.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] claim_arguably@lemdro.id 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I like your instance more and more

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (16 children)

The Paradox of Tolerance says if you tolerate the intolerant, then you yourself become intolerant by defacto excluding those that the other do not tolerate.

It's like the old saying, if you are in a group with 9 Nazis, that's a group with 10 Nazis. Same with Zionists

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

IMO this needs to be done.

/0 and the nexus are politically active instances, so there are grounds to decide which political views should be allowed in them. And geopolitics do matter on the internet; when two people interact online they change worldviews, and worldviews dictate if someone will fight or support their government's external policies.

Slippery slopes are a concern, but as long as you stick to why those rules are in place, it should be fine. (Basically: you don't want people here who support genocide, ethnonationalism, and discrimination against a whole group of people.)

"Intentions" and beliefs are a red herring. Ultimately, neither thing matters; what matters is what someone does and says. If someone consistently voices Zionism they should get the chop, no matter if they say "trust me, I'm no Zionist".

So I think the matter here is actually the finer details — to ensure the anti-Zionism policy is applied in a transparent and fair way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wonderful move, if a bit overdue in terms of formality. The de facto moderation stance was already cleaning up Zionazi content; so yeah, in massive favour :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hard agree on this, let Nazis into your bar and it becomes a Nazi bar.

Zionist are just Nazis in a different uniform.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm a tiny bit worried that "zionist" might change over time to "not sufficiently anti-zionist", but... Maybe not, maybe I'm just paranoid.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semester3383@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm an outsider to this instance, so my vote doesn't count.

I'm fine with banning Zionist content and users. I'm starting to see them regularly on Bluesky; they make inflammatory claims, but don't back anything up, and immediately resort to ad hominem when challenged. Even if you thought that some of the claims they made might have a degree of validity, they're still disruptive assholes. So far I haven't run across any that are acting in good faith; the accounts I've encountered sound like Israeli psy-ops.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Crap, I voted twice. Didn't realize nexus counted (because I apparently skipped that part the first time I read it) and switched to my db0 to vote.

Which is how I got the reminder, again, that I forgot about the afaq read (damnit self).

Brb fixing stupid/bad reading comprehension.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Loving y'all's instance more and more by the day.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hendu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It looks like the text of your fourth bullet point got cut off.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you! It didn't get cut off, I just forgot to finish that sentence, oops! Fixed now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Haven't seen much hasbara activity here... but it's never too early to ban the fuckers.

edit: Ooops... looks like I spoke too soon.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ban the motherfuckers, I'm tired of seeing Zios post their apologia and propaganda all over the internet anyways. People hand wringing about it in the comments need to shut the fuck up and read the god damn code of conduct.

One thing I'll say is that this'll probably put more load on the admins, so I hope y'all have factored that in. It'll be well worth the effort in my opinion, both to protect our m@teys (did that ever take off?) at large as well as our Muslim, Arab, and Levantine friends.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Maybe with a warning before banning them because you can't decide what someone's intentions are, but things like dehumanization, justifying genocide, hate speech, intimidation, and actively spreading misinformation, those are areas where you can create relatively clear and objective moderation rules. I'm deffo for that, let's keep this platform smart and fair

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Was there a specific incident(s) that led to this course of action?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'm 💯 for this.

Now I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a second here. Are we planning to ban other settler colonialist and or imperialist based accounts?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›