That is simply wrong. Public pressure can certainly be effective. In any case, it’s definitely better than doing nothing at all.

deleted by creator

I’m curious to see if our esteemed Federal Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has anything to say about this. Well, actually not, because he’s more of a U.S. lobbyist than a representative of the people, and so he certainly won’t level any criticism at his employers.

That makes it pretty clear that most executives are the worst possible people to run a company. Well, that’s just how it is when ruthlessness and greed are the only criteria used to select top executives.

But hey, even if they were to lose their jobs because they’re burning through so much money, things will go on as usual: Anyone who’s ever held a top management position will always be hired for the same role somewhere else, because competence is definitely not the deciding factor here. Never was, never will be.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but there’s definitely not a single person in Trump’s cabinet who hasn’t lined their pockets to the fullest.

What else would you expect from a gang of criminals like that? All of the cabinet members are either absolutely ruthless billionaires themselves, or some MMA fighters, conspiracy theorists, has-been media personalities, or the like.

They do have one thing in common, though: the motivation to exploit the general public to the fullest. I can’t see a single thing in Trump’s first term—or in his current one—that would contradict that even in the slightest. But there are countless facts that prove exactly that.

Epstein-related services, I guess…

Neither do I—especially since this ridiculous decision is by no means the only thing that should have triggered mass civil resistance.

I mean, aside from all the outrageous, completely blatant corruption, it’s just as obvious, for example, that state power is being used to cram hundreds of thousands of people into concentration camps and even to protect a pedophile ring of the super-rich. These are just two more examples among countless others.

Well, unfortunately, that’s just the way it is: even the most horrific crimes are apparently not enough to mobilize the American people. And so the most unscrupulous among Americans get their way.

Unfortunately, this affects the entire world in one way or another; but the world can only watch in disbelief and wonder how a people can allow themselves to be exploited to such an extent. Other countries can do little about it except turn away in disgust, because the U.S. cannot be defeated militarily, especially since the monsters who lead it would stop at nothing.

So it is entirely up to the American people to hold their criminal regime accountable.

Unfortunately, I have now given up all hope that U.S. citizens will rise up. Since that hasn’t happened yet, despite all the outrageous crimes of the regime, I don’t see what else would have to happen for U.S. citizens to get it together and finally take action.

This country has obviously been an oligarchy for so long that the people have given up and no longer defend themselves, even though their overlords have completely abandoned any pretense by now.

No lobbying is necessary, since Chris Wright—like everyone else in Trump’s cabinet—is simply abusing his position to enrich himself directly: He made his fortune in the shale gas industry. He founded Pinnacle Technologies in 1992, later led Stroud Energy, and in 2011 founded Liberty Energy, which was valued at $2.8 billion in 2023. As CEO of Liberty Energy, he earned $5.6 million that year.

Wright himself is a billionaire and, in his position, represents only his own interests. The entire U.S. regime is organized this way—it has as little to do with a democratic government as the oligarchy in Russia does.

However, if you’re referring to the orange mafia boss: His decisions, too, are obviously not based on lobbying, but simply on outright corruption.

Wow, the billionaires seem completely convinced that U.S. citizens will go along with anything… well, hmmm… who’s going to argue with them… it’s true, after all, that they do…

Yep, sorry. But hey, this thread definitely has its fair share of mudslinging. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth.

Hmm, well, the moderation workload does need to remain reasonably manageable for you guys.

I can’t really judge that, of course, but perhaps you could identify specific topics from the modlog that have repeatedly caused problems in the past. For example, posts about political parties (such as the two U.S. parties or the far-right AfD in Germany, etc.), political movements like MAGA, politicians like Trump and his allies, wars (such as the current U.S.-Iran conflict), or technologies like LLMs.

You could also try surveying the community itself to identify such “controversial topics,” perhaps in a pinned post, where you could set a minimum number of upvotes per suggestion for a suggestion to be included.

I think this would yield a number of concrete examples that illustrate what is meant by “no politics.” The more examples there are, the clearer it would probably be.

Thank you very much for the background information. And also for the time you spend moderating—that is truly commendable and is indeed very much needed.

Perhaps I should have reached out to you directly, but I was so outraged that I didn’t, especially since this wasn’t the first post of mine you’d removed for the same reason.

Well, looking at all the downvotes here, it seems your approach to “showerthoughts” is being liked and even vigorously defended by many.

As I said, I see it differently and consider it very dangerous to define community rules so broadly that they simply leave the decision of what’s allowed and what isn’t exclusively up to the moderators. In your case, this seems to be done with caution and reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that rules must be clearly defined and transparent from the outset so that it’s clear what to expect. Likewise, to ensure that decisions are not made purely on a whim.

As I said, I consider the “no politics” rule unsuitable for this, since there’s simply no such thing as a topic that might not be political to someone.

But since many here seem to see it quite differently, I’m probably wrong. Still, I simply can’t accept that it’s a lottery whether my posts will be allowed or not in a general community that doesn’t have a fixed topic.

Therefore, I have to accept the rules and just post elsewhere, where there is no such rule. I think that’s better for everyone, since my posts at your community only seem to lead to conflicts, which is certainly not my intention at all.

If you’d like, I’ll delete this post here right away, but it seems to me that it might be a good way to gather some more opinions on the rule in question.

Please let me know if you see it differently—in that case, I’ll delete this post here immediately.

Well, I simply didn’t have the motivation anymore, so I didn’t take the time to look for a community where this post might not have been removed.

However, since I’ve often found myself starting to read a post and leaving a comment on it, only to discover that the post had been removed because of this arbitrary “no politics” rule, I thought I’d use this admittedly salty post to point out what kinds of posts are currently being removed in one of the largest Lemmy communities.

I think it’s important for people to be aware that a community whose name suggests it’s a place to share your thoughts with others is, in fact, a community where a kind of “thought police” decides—based on their own sensitivities—what people get to see and what they don’t. That’s exactly what this “no politics” rule amounts to, because any topic can be interpreted as political if you don’t have a clear definition of what “political” actually means.

I don’t understand how so many people can think it’s a good idea to give moderators a rule that allows them to remove posts at will. It’s like banning posts about mathematics in a physics community—it’s simply absurd.

Thanks for the heads-up! I guess that’s what I’ll do. It’s a shame that the largest communities, of all places, are censoring themselves like this.

I’ll spare you any “hot takes” in the future by no longer participating in your “community” all together. That way, I won’t have to deal with the thought police who rule over your shower thoughts.

I can understand that moderation is time-consuming, but it’s pretty absurd what you’re pulling. It’s nothing short of arbitrary censorship, because there’s nothing in the world that can’t be called “political” in one way or another

So, in short: Mission accomplished—another user silenced who was disrupting your addiction to entertainment with pesky remarks about reality.

Don’t worry, the bots will keep you well entertained. You don’t need to post anything at all; you can simply leave your comments and receive automated replies that fully take your feelings into account.

Don’t worry, the bots will take over here, too—with delicious meals that are very healthy.

Thank you very much!

I wasn’t aware that this was such a big issue in the Fediverse that there are already dedicated communities discussing it.

Until now, I’d assumed the matter was somewhat settled since the larger communities on .ml now have an equivalent elsewhere. I’ve come across this problem several times elsewhere as well (the “no politics” rule, even though the post wasn’t political in any sense), but I guess I’m just completely out of the loop.

So it’s probably more a case of it being a different overlord (the U.S. instead of Russia).

I can only conclude from this that even platforms like Lemmy on the the Fediverse are controlled by billionaires. That might sound a bit like a conspiracy theory, but given their unscrupulousness, it seems all too likely to me.

Either way: for me, the matter is clear—you can’t express your opinion here either.

It’s disillusioning, but at least now I know how I need to conduct myself here.

Can you name a single topic that isn’t political? And: How can you fail to see that such an indefinable rule is completely out of place in a free network? You must know that there are immeasurably wealthy people who have no qualms about buying their way to impose their worldview. How can you still believe it’s a good idea for many of the largest communities in the open Fediverse to establish rules that are so vague they not only make arbitrariness possible but actually encourage it?

You could have posted this comment on my post if it hadn’t been removed by the mods at ShowerThoughts because it was apparently too political—at least according to arbitrary Rule 3, which always comes into play whenever something is posted that the mods don’t like, or maybe even those who send them a little money… I have no idea how things work there, but in any case, there’s no way to have a debate on this issue.