this isn’t that complicated

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.

Couldn’t agree more, fascists deserve no quarter. Why should we accept and tolerate them here.

And to all the people here whining about “freeze peach” what fuck are you doing on an anarchist leftist Lemmy instance? You do realize that hateful and dangerous speech is one of the things we fight against right? Tolerating it goes against what we stand for.

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.

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

I want to focus on the structure of the proposal rather than on defending Israeli state policy, which I oppose in many respects.

As written, the proposal does not clearly define Zionism so much as treat a particular interpretation of it as self-evident, namely that Zionism is inherently a form of settler colonialism. That is a position many people hold, but it is also a contested one, and the policy depends on that premise without unpacking it.

If the core concern is behavior such as genocide denial, dehumanization of Palestinians, or the repetition of propaganda talking points, those are concrete harms and seem like appropriate moderation targets on their own. Framing the rule around an ideological label instead of specific conduct risks conflating belief, state policy, and online behavior, which are not always the same thing even when they overlap.

I also share some of the concern about how “pro-Zionist” would be determined in practice. When enforcement depends on interpreting intent or identity rather than observable actions, it increases the risk of inconsistency and misclassification, even with good faith moderation.

I am not arguing against taking a clear moral stance in support of Palestinians. I am suggesting that the policy would be stronger, clearer, and easier to defend if it focused explicitly on the behaviors and arguments that cause harm, rather than relying on a broad and disputed definition of Zionism to do that work.

zionism and anarchism are mutually exclusive idealogies. you cannot believe in solidarity for all mankind and also support an ethnocutural supremacist movement.

I support banning zionists from dbzer0 to match them being banned on Anarchist Nexus.

Having a definition of Zionist would probably help?

I think Israel is committing war crimes in Palestine, Netenyahu should be tried by the ICC, and that what is happening in Palestine at present is in fact genocide.

But also, I think Israel should contiue to exist, and should - given the crimes committed against their citizens by Hamas - be entitled to demand that Hamas play no part in governance of a future Palestinian state.

Uncertain whether that counts as a zionist position, or not.

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.

I guess I’m for it. I don’t have particularly strong feelings about it. I think it’s important for people to strongly oppose these ideas when they crop up. But is it better for these to be visibly refuted? Or to be quietly removed? Can’t say I know what’s better. Banning them is fine with me.

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

i’m not from your instance but good.

fascists should not be allowed anywhere.

Add a clause stating unambiguously that this does not discriminate against people with the Jewish ethnicity or against followers of Judaism. Just the specific policy of Zionism is affected.

Palestinian here, just thanking you for trying to do what you can. <3

Zionism is so innately wrong (and has been for 80 years). Anyone still supporting it up to now is too far gone to be convinced by reading comments by some people online.

I AM NOT A DIV0 USER. DO NOT COUNT MY COMMENT AS A VOTE