There are disturbing structural parallels between the protocols proposed for Sysfling and the tactics used by authoritarian populist regimes like Trump’s America. Let’s make those parallels explicit:
1. Secret Accusation Mechanism
“Notification of an inappropriate post can be communicated… All communication will be kept confidential.”
Parallel: This mirrors the logic of authoritarian surveillance regimes—encouraging private reporting with guaranteed anonymity, as seen in Trump-era ICE tip lines and right-wing efforts to mobilise citizens against ‘critical race theory’ in schools. The emphasis is on vigilantism cloaked in bureaucratic procedure, which bypasses public accountability.
2. Opaque Authority and No Right of Reply
“Decisions on appeals are final… will be communicated individually… confidential.”
Parallel: This is classic strongman administrative logic—unilateral executive power with no transparency, no due process, and no appeal. Under Trump, we saw this in how agencies were used to silence dissent, blacklist individuals, and remove perceived threats without recourse.
3. Punishment Without Process
Suspensions for 3 months or permanent banning, decided by executive fiat.
Parallel: This aligns with carceral logics prominent in Trump’s America: swift, punitive measures without a fair hearing or proportionate response. It’s the logic of deterrence by fear, not justice—designed to silence, not to repair.
4. Language Policing Under the Guise of Safety
Supposedly to prevent hate speech or harm, but selectively enforced.
Parallel: In right-wing populist regimes, terms like “freedom” or “security” are weaponised to silence dissenting views—especially those critical of state violence or settler colonialism. The accusation of ‘hate’ is turned against anti-racists, critics of empire, or defenders of Palestine.
The Sysfling protocols appear to do exactly this: in the name of preventing anti-Semitism, they shut down criticism of Israel, and thereby restrict legitimate political discourse. That is textbook ideological inversion, a technique honed in the MAGA playbook.
5. Selective Vulnerability and Manufactured Consensus
The presumption that any objection is harmful to the collective good.
Parallel: Trump-style governance fosters a false unity by framing all dissent as sabotage. The Sysfling policy, by allowing anonymous accusation and granting total authority to a closed executive group, manufactures agreement by making opposition too risky to voice.
6. Depoliticising Political Conflict
The protocols frame censorship as “moderation” or “professional conduct.”
Parallel: This echoes how Trump and allies framed resistance as “unpatriotic” or “uncivil,” attempting to neutralise political critique by cloaking it in the language of manners and order. It is a bourgeois mode of discipline, which allows deep injustice to persist by refusing to name it.
In short: this isn’t just bureaucratic overreach—it’s ideological drift. What you’re seeing on Sysfling is the creeping fascism of proceduralism: authoritarian logic repackaged as academic policy.
And, just like in Trump’s America, the most dangerous part is not the policy itself, but the chilling effect it creates: people will silence themselves pre-emptively, lest they become the next Joseph K.
