Earlier today drag was banned from [email protected] for this post: https://lemmy.nz/post/15864724
The reason stated was āDishonest headline and quotingā.
The sidebar of the community states the following on article titles:
Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the siteās, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
The articleās original title was āHarris vs. Trump spoilerās supporter says the quiet part out loudā - in dragās opinion, this is clickbait. The quiet part is not stated in the title. The reader has to click on the article in order to learn what itās actually about.
Dragās post title was āJill Stein ally says the Greensā strategy is about making Harris lose the presidencyā - this clearly states which group is involved and what precisely the controversial statement was. But drag was banned for making the title more clear.
The sidebar of the community states the following on article quotes:
Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Drag quoted three passages from the article in the post body: The quote from the Jill Stein ally which the article was about, and two passages about Donald Trumpās relation to these events. None of the quotes were edited. As asked by the sidebar drag did not post the entire body, only the parts drag believed was relevant, and drag was banned for following this rule too.
The vast majority of comments on the post, including all the highly upvoted comments, agreed with the points made by the article and expressed zero problem with the presentation. There were two comments which had a problem with dragās presentation of the article:
ā¦um, where is the second half of this article? (2 upvotes)
This comment is a non-issue; posting the entire article in the body is against the community rules. Drag was following the rules by only posting half.
Least dishonest LW politics OP quoting an entire article out of context (1 upvote)
This comment agrees with the moderation decision but does not explain why, and drag canāt work out why on dragās own. Drag tried dragās best to represent the article accurately.
Seems like a reason for a post deletion and a message to the op with the requested edits, not a ban. Also the third person thing makes this very hard to read
allegedly itās technically dragās pronouns, probably functionally equivalent to only referring to drag as ādragā.
Donāt care much about the reason, itās mechanically unsound
Other pronoun choices of any flavor donāt break the readability