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.

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.

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.

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

There is probably a better way to avoid interacting with Zionists than banning any account potentially associated with Zionism. I personally oppose Zionism, so this does not affect me yet, but it could easily turn into a slippery slope. If someone does not oppose Zionism in the “correct” way, perhaps in an anti-hierarchy, anarchist, left-libertarian fashion, they could end up being instantly banned.

Policies like this risk turning the platform into yet another echo chamber, similar to Gettr or Bluesky. I honestly do not think there is any need to ban Zionists, since their ideas are easy to refute in the marketplace of ideas. That said, this may simply reflect my own (maybe) culturally liberal outlook, which does not align with this site’s apparent bias.

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.

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 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.

One of my favorite hobbies over the past few years is following the internal collapse of online communities that passionately support an incoherent political ideology. There’s something entertaining in watching events of the downfall unfold as predicted. This community is going down that road and there’s not stopping it.

It’s really not hard to see why. Anarchy is a fundamentally incoherent ideology. The ideology goes against human nature. There’s a reason why it never worked out in history and never will. Like with all other inherently flawed ideologies, anarchy is too rigid, idealistic, and out of touch with reality. It can’t adapt and its inadequacies can’t hold up to criticism. Therefore, in order for the ideology to stay intact, authoritarianism has to step in and limit the discourse.

And so the censorship hammer begins to swing. Political censorship always after specific targets rather than specific behaviors, which means that it’s designed to be weaponized. This is usually done with the implementation being intentionally unprincipled and vague which removes accountability from the censoring authority, thus giving them the wiggle room to censor whoever they don’t like. Which is another thing, political censorship is always framed as a necessary moral purification rather than the liberty erosion that it is. This gives the censoring authority the power to ban any critics of the censorship as being immoral or supporting immorality. It’s the same old tired textbook that we’ve time and time again.

The thing is? It will happen. There’s no point in arguing for or against something like this, it will pass with thunderous applause… which is ironic for an anarchist space, but that’s just how things go. Once it does pass, it WILL be followed up with a similar proposal soon after and then another and another, and the discourse here will continue to slowly but surely get more limited and more extreme. This will remain the case until the community snuffs itself out and only a shell of what it used to be remains. This community’s future is going to be similar to what r/conservative or lemmygrad are like now. If that’s how it’s going to be, then I might as well as sit back and enjoy the show.

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

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.

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.

how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not

Pretty easy. If they support the existence of Israel they are a Zionist.

i’m not from your instance but good.

fascists should not be allowed anywhere.