Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:
- Don’t like their content
- Dont like their political leaning
- Dont like their free speech approach
- General feeling of being offended
- I want a safe space!
- This instance if hurting vulnerable people
I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.
Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?
Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148
Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!
Is the idea of the open marketplace of ideas outdated?
Yes, it is. We ran this experiment with 8chan already. I consider Frederick Brennans opinion on internet moderation pretty well-tested by reality, unlike the ‘free speech absolutists’ I meet. Musk is a classic poster boy for that mindset and the instant he was given power his convictions really amounted to ‘hide the stuff I don’t like, boost the stuff I do’. So I think we should all be suspicious of people who claim this at this point.
8chan exists, as do lots of deeper, darker unmoderated boards. If they are superior, why aren’t the majority of people there? Why are they almost universally despised and shamed?
Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?
No, humanity lives in reality where thoughts lead to actions and pretending like there’s a firewall between the two is unrealistic. 8chan is routinely linked to mass shootings, and NOT JUST IN THE USA
So your conclusion is: “Dear admins, defederate from everything I deem offensive?”
No, how silly. Where did you get that idea?
I had that impression from your initial response, but I might have misunderstood.
I still disagree that thought and speech lead deterministically to action which is a thing you actually stated. Your argument is the same as the one used against POV shooters and there’s no evidence for this claim.
Yes, my stance is far from ‘ban everything I dont like’. But you need to understand that ‘ban nothing at all’ (which is what free speech absolutists argue for) is on the other extreme of the moderation spectrum. I like to think I fall somewhere in the middle.
it’s hardly a binary choice between the 2 so I was thrown when you instantly assumed that.
There’s plenty of evidence that 8chan leads to mass shootings as many of the shooters leave vast manifestos on the site itself referencing beliefs they learned on the site. It has nothing to do with video games. If you want to claim that ‘words and beliefs never lead to actions’ that’s fine but I think that’s obviously false. In fact I’d say all actions are the result of our beliefs.
its fine for us to disagree here.
I’m not sure I disagree here. I don’t see 8chan or 4chan or any other webforum with lack of moderation as comparable with lemmy and the Fediverse.
Can you expand on where you see similarities?
- They are forums
- With open registration
- Hosted online
- Where a wide variety of people post and comment
The only difference I see is their moderation stance in fact. So that would suggest that their (lack of) moderation is why it has become a haven of hate, and not some other aspect.
Agreed to all points.
While:
- Lemmy is federated and not run on one central site (not like Reddit or any webforum)
- Lemmy has instances with different stance on administration and moderation but all of them are moderated to some extent
- AFAIK you can’t block, mute, or filter on most image board-like forums as a user. While on Lemmy you can filter and block users and communities (and probably soon even whole instances, it’s not that hard to do that client side)
Given the above I think we have severely different scenarios and as such a completely different use case and type of user.
I definitely tend to agree with you in terms of being in the middle. But the middle is such a vast, grey area that is hard to pinpoint exactly where the middle is.
Is there no way to block a particular instance for the individual (I’ve never tried)? I feel like if there is a way for individuals to do so, why not put it in their hands? And if not, is it possible to make it so they can? Kind of removes the need for an entire instance to make any calls in the first place.
But I’m very much new to the federation universe and incredibly dumb in terms of computer/internet workings.
I would really advise you to go read Frederick Brennan’s thoughts and watch his interviews etc. I think he will address a lot of your questions. He is also the perfect person to make the arguments because:
- he was a handicapped youth who HATED having others protect him from content, he wanted to know what people REALLY thought, would have agreed with the most extreme people here 100% in his youth
- he actually undertook making the idea real, while fully wanting it to succeed
- as a result, he was forced to engage with the reality of these ideas most of us just discuss
- his first person experience taught him lessons about this that we can all learn from, without repeating the same mistakes
Kind of removes the need for an entire instance to make any calls in the first place.
Not really. When some instance is federated, the home instance is literally hosting and serving the content from that instance: comments and posts. (Only if one or more home instance users subscribe to a community on the other instance) If the users and/or admins think the content is that bad, or the users are that bad, then why host them at all? Defedetate them and keep the content off the server entirely. Why help lies and hateful content spread, even in that minor way?
It might be cool to be able to individually ignore/block instances so it’s on a more individual level
People don’t always engage in good faith. Such people are not bringing ideas to the marketplace, they are trying to manipulate people.
In order to really engage with each other, we have to have some common ground on which we can work from. If that base ground is not established, there is no discussion to be had. If I’m trying to talk about how to make grocery stores more efficient, but you’re talking about how to get to Jupiter, we can’t have a conversation that has any point.
A similar thing can happen at the instance scale.
Defederating for the reasons you said are, by themselves, poor reasons I agree. But sometimes I think they are trying to say they aren’t engaging in good faith, or that enough of the basic point of that instance is at odds with the basic point of this instance that defederating makes sense.
Maybe the disconnect is what is meant by open market. You might actually be complaining that people have too much choice and are free to start an instance, using their own resources and choose to disassociate from some others users. If someone sets up a roadside stand and lets their friends sell things there but refuses to let a friend of a friend sell his swastika stickers there, that isn’t censorship if the guy is allowed to open his open stand. It’s just not being overly helpful. If no one wants to go to swastika guy’s stand, and everyone makes fun of him, or even discourages other people from going there, that isn’t censorship either. It’s only censorship if he isn’t allowed to set up his own stand by someone in charge of that sort of thing.
What it sounds like you want isn’t a censorship-free platform, but a platform that is restricted from not choosing to give everyone the exact same voice. That may sound more fair to you, but when it costs person A money to facilitate person B’s access, and you don’t allow person A the choice to opt out of that (basically raising the bar for person A to participate), you’re actually restricting A instead of being fair to B.
In the case where person A is actually a public resource, that’s where it becomes censorship to block person B’s access, because then it’s a position of authority determining who gets to say what. But when person A is a regular guy, hog-tying him into helping person B blather about something hateful, or even just annoying, to person A is actually infringing on rights instead of promoting them.
Find a new instance of you don’t like the admins policy, or start your own? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Why are you under the posts calling for defederation saying this?
Boycotts are a feature of an “open marketplace”
Boycotts as individual decisions yes. Boycotts as institutional warfare (top to bottom) are not.
You became part of a server which boycotts other servers when you made the individual decision to create an account here
As far as I’m aware (which doesn’t mean much) I haven’t seen any boycott this instance based on “I dislike opinions expressed elsewhere, let’s defederate them”. If you can provide examples I’m happy to look into it and change my mind.
Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.
Here’s the thing though: nobody’s mandating it for everyone else. The admin has the final call. If you don’t like it, find an instance with an admin that runs things the way you like. If you have the skills and/or money, make your own instance and run it the way you like.
This isn’t Reddit/Facebook/Twitter where if you don’t like the way things are run, your options are suck it up or cut yourself off from the network. Things are more nuanced here.
All of those arguments are not objective, they’re subjective. This means that the idea of invalid/valid is irrelevant. To use an analogy, saying that “I like apples” is an invalid argument is pretty ridiculous, how is “I like/don’t like this content” any different? To push that a bit farther, how is “I don’t want to associate with these kinds of people, and I don’t want to interact with people who find that ok”? This is all personal, subjective, messy stuff.
First of all: Thanks for your contributions, I appreciate you participating in this discussion.
While you’re right with the assessment that the final call is for the admin(s) to make let me rephrase it a little bit:
Isn’t the immediate call for censorship/defederation as soon as some views are challenged a bit too entitled? It looks like centralised platforms like FB and Twitter allowed this mindset to flourish and I’m not really comfortable with this.
Isn’t the immediate call for censorship/defederation as soon as some views are challenged a bit too entitled?
There’s a big difference between “views are challenged” and either active misinformation (vaccines = gene therapy?!?) or rampant bigotry. As a half-jewish person, I’m especially (again, subjectively) keen to avoid interacting with people like that. There’s so many dog whistles crammed into that unformatted wall of text that I’m surprised my whole neighbourhood isn’t filled with the sound of howling.
There’s a big difference between “views are challenged” and either active misinformation (vaccines = gene therapy?!?
I would first start with the definition of gene-therapy and take it from there to start with, but if we keep in on a layman level:
- mRNA vaccines do contain a genetic program to code a specific protein
- Once the mRNA instructions are processed in your cells they will start to produce the protein encoded in these instructions
- the resulting protein is released and your immune system reacts which ideally leads to immunization against this protein.
The above is current scientific status quo and not controversial at all. So could you call is agend therapy? Yes using the term just bit more broadly this would still fit.
Is it misinformation? Maybe. But don’t we have a right to decide for ourselves what is and isn’t misinformation? Shouldn’t misinformation be challenged and ridiculed when exposed? I’d like to be able to do that but I can’t if it’s behind walls or hidden in dark corners, where it festers and attracts the wrong people.
or rampant bigotry. As a half-jewish person, I’m especially (again, subjectively) keen to avoid interacting with people like that.
Again: Dont they have a right to be bigoted?
I understand if you don’t want to be associated with them, this is legit. But shouldn’t other be allowed to debate them, confront them or even partially agree with them?
If you’re hiding or prohibiting open debate you will only get more of it, we can see this over and over, again and again. Prohibited fruits are the interesting ones.
Make it uncool to be a bigoted Nazi and only a marginalized group will associate with them. Demonize and censor them and see them grow exponentially in number, influence and power.
If that counts as gene therapy, then the term becomes meaningless as the majority of medicine is now counted as gene therapy. They use it in this way to make it sound scary and dangerous. All medicine has side-affects and risks, but the vague use of scary language is the point.
Sure, I’m not the thought police and I’m never going to claim to be always right, all the time. That way leads to a complete and utter inability to engage with new information that challenges worldviews. Where that ends for me is judging people based on parentage and ethnicity. I have no interest talking to a person like that.
Debating a racist isn’t normally a productive experience. You can’t logic your way out of a position that you started believing for emotional reasons. Also, they normally don’t treat words and arguments with the same care as their interlocutors. Consequently, if somebody wants to go engage with them and try and convince them they’re wrong, I wish them all the luck in the world, I just think it’s a waste of time most of the time. For me, I just want to share links and have conversations with people who don’t think of me as sub-human or inherently evil.
For me, I just want to share links and have conversations with people who don’t think of me as sub-human or inherently evil.
Wholeheartedly agreed! And that is the point from where we can look at things we have in common despite, maybe, some opposing views:
We both want to read, share and comment on interesting stuff we expect to find here on Lemmy in the Fediverse.
It also seems that we’re both interested in civilised exchange of views and arguments.
The only key difference I see, and correct me if I’m wrong here, is that you wouldn’t want to see/engage stuff you define as bigoted/racist or hateful, correct?
Which I can understand and even agree upon. The only thing that makes me doubt is: Is defederation and the call for authorities (admins) the right way to deal with this? Or should the recipient decide what the filters should be? Like in the email approach, the recipient decides if he wants to receive an email and even then it might get filtered out and land in spam.
A blacklist, to keep using the email protocol as example, is a tool used sparingly and only when other filtering methods are unsuccessful or when greater damage is prevented that way.
What do you think?
A blacklist, to keep using the email protocol as example, is a tool used sparingly and only when other filtering methods are unsuccessful or when greater damage is prevented that way.
Have you ever run a mail server? If so, have you looked at your logs? The RBL’s on the managed mail gateway for my work turns away 70% of the attempts. This is even before spam scoring kicks in on the 30% initially accepted. A significant percent of that is considered spam. Email has a complex set of automated tools to reject content without even viewing it.
I still think email, even though federated, is a poor analogy to make for Lemmy.
Is defederation and the call for authorities (admins) the right way to deal with this? Or should the recipient decide what the filters should be? Like in the email approach, the recipient decides if he wants to receive an email and even then it might get filtered out and land in spam.
There’s a key difference with email: that’s opt-in communication. Generally speaking (outside of botspam which does get blacklisted) you have to sign up for a newsletter or ask someone to email you. It’s opt-in, not opt-out. Lemmy/Kbin are by definition opt-out: a new user, browsing All, will see everything they haven’t blocked.
An admin, attempting to make the kind of user that they want to see on their instance feel welcome, does have a duty to curate it. If the first post they see on their New feed is a screed calling for the death of all LGBTQ+ people (for example), do you think a brand new user will calmly block the community and move on, or decide that this instance isn’t the one for them? And a user that agrees with that hateful message, they have now gotten the message that this instance is friendly to their worldview.
Curation determines userbase which determines content. I know which side of the coin I fall on there.
There’s a key difference with email: that’s opt-in communication. Generally speaking (outside of botspam which does get blacklisted) you have to sign up for a newsletter or ask someone to email you. It’s opt-in, not opt-out. Lemmy/Kbin are by definition opt-out: a new user, browsing All, will see everything they haven’t blocked.
Good point!
If the first post they see on their New feed is a screed calling for the death of all LGBTQ+ people (for example), do you think a brand new user will calmly block the instance and move on, or decide that this instance isn’t the one for them? And a user that agrees with that hateful message, they have now gotten the message that this instance is friendly to their worldview.
And here I disagree with you. The world is a horrible, dangerous, wonderful, exciting , murderous, funny, sad, depressing, manic place. Hiding that some people hate gays will not change the fact that some people hate gays. It will also not make these people disappear. Isn’t it better to know reality and accept it as it is, deal with it as it comes?
Isn’t the immediate call for censorship/defederation as soon as some views are challenged a bit too entitled?
To some extent, YES, but I think it’s a bit more nuanced and comes down to where you draw that line. Everyone is going to draw it in a different place.
I moderated an academic listserv with membership in 5 digits back before the html protocol even existed. That was huge for the time. And, as you would think, in academia at the time the idea of cronterversy, free speech, and engaging in items you disagreed with was pretty comprehensive. Even so, we still had to moderate, primarily for spam and obvious trolling as well as the occasional personal attacks.
I was an active participant in Usenet in the 90’s. Usenet was federated servers hosting posts and comments from participants on that entire federation. I know a server admin could control what Usenet groups they carried. I have no idea what other levels of moderation were available. Discussions were definitely more freewheeling and challenging than you see today, but they also had a higher content level and a greater respect for intellectual argument, even in trolling. Again, I suspect that was because the bulk of the participants were coming from higher ed institutions.
I was active in Internet forums when SCO sued IBM. There were active attacks on communities and successful attempts to splinter communities based in part on what side of the very question you are asking participants came down on. Again, though, there was a strong respect for intellectual engagement. And, I came down strongly with the same opinion you are expressing back then.
I think that strong respect for engagement exists here in the fediverse, particularly when compared to something like FaceBook or Reddit. As the fediverse grows, I think that will go away.
I don’t have much respect for low content trolling, for active attacks via brigading, for manipulation. I think the ability to upvote is important, but I also think the ability for bot accounts to manipulate that is a very difficult thing to combat, particularly in something as young as Lemmy that is experiencing exponential growth.
I also have a much better awareness of how subtle that manipulation can be in influencing individuals and society, including my own views.
I no longer have the absolutist attitude I once had. I agree with your own concerns about echo chambers, because that leads to its own manipulation of views and the splintering of society. However, I’m also more willing to support the idea of not providing a platform for some of the more odious content than my older self would have supported.
I’m probably in a position to piss off nearly everyone. I disagree with your view that there should be almost no lines drawn, but I disagree with the majority that the lines should be drawn where they want it to be.
I’ve been on the internet for a minute… if you think unmoderated free speech works in a primarily text based medium then I have a bridge in Queens that just popped on the market. Oh look that’s a statement, i should defend that right with logically consistent arguments and citations and draw my conclusions from that and oh my God is anyone still reading this?
The most concise reason I have is that respect is a two-way street, and I haven’t met a lot of folks online who actually understand what it means to respect an argument. The barrier to entry for me is the ability to think critically, and that involves regulating your own speach and not having to rely on others to do it for you.
So let’s see… statement, some bullshit evidence, appeal to critical thinking, one more to go …
This is a falsifiable and testable theory … find me a site that promotes this and I’ll look and see how long it takes for it to fail my one simple criteria.
Your mixing the need for moderation which I don’t dispute with the call for defederation by users who feel offended by lawful freedom of speech.
So if you want to make an argument against what I actually said/wrote: Be my guest.
Defederation is a fancy term for shunning. Which is an appropriate response when a community fails to regulate it’s speech. Differnent communities will have different standards based on but not limited to local social mores, geographical region, language and probably a lot more. I appreciate your effort in defending Freedom of Speech on this platform, but the sad fact remains that most people on the internet have no concept on how Rhetoric, Logic, and Burden of Proof actually work so it just ends up with everyone throwing shit at eachother.
Defederation is a fancy term for shunning. Which is an appropriate response when a community fails to regulate it’s speech.
Partially agree here. Free speech has obviously limits (when it becomes unlawful or it’s weaponized) and moderation/oversight is needed. Every garden needs a gardener, without care and limitations even the most beautiful garden becomes a dangerous jungle (or a desert).
If what you postulated, a community fails to regulate free speech, happens I can see why defederation is considered to contain a growing issue.
However it seems that defederation, or at least the call for defederation, is now becoming a tool for the cancellation-fraction on both ends of the political spectrum so they can all together avoid talking or sewing their believe-system challenged. I see this as a great loss of opportunity on one side and also as a danger to society in the other.
Differnent communities will have different standards based on but not limited to local social mores, geographical region, language and probably a lot more.
Yes! And isn’t that an amazing chance to learn, debate, and grow? Federation can open up a world of new thought and concepts to someone who started his journey on a server in a country were religious laws restrict free speech, sexual liberation, human rights etc.
I appreciate your effort in defending Freedom of Speech on this platform, but the sad fact remains that most people on the internet have no concept on how Rhetoric, Logic, and Burden of Proof actually work so it just ends up with everyone throwing shit at eachother.
When I started this community a day ago I expected everything and was still somewhat pleasantly surprised by some contributions I would learn to understand and respect while still disagreeing on some aspects.
And even if shit is thrown around, it’s worth the effort and maybe I’ll still learn something, even if it is to moderate a bit better or to try to explain myself a little bit better.
- Make lemmy stupidly easy to prop up an instance
- Cap users of any instance to 100
This way, no one instance can bloat up to thousands of users and start making a big island.
Sounds like a good plan! It makes the Fediverse more diverse, more censorship restitant and more resilient against corporate takeover attempts.
I like it!
deleted by creator
Exploding Heads guy here…
I’d like to say that the Exploding Heads admin, Kapow, is first & foremost anti-censorship. He’s going to let anyone post things - there are lines in the sand not to be crossed, but the general belief of Kapow and many of the core contributors is that free speech doesn’t hurt anyone.
Kapow is not far right. Many of the EH members are just Libertarians. Another large amount are Trump-type “populist right.” Call them fascists, I don’t care. It’s fine. A rose by any other name… But there aren’t any Nazis on Exploding Heads. We banned one just the other day.
The topic here is free speech & the marketplace of ideas and I can tell you that… man changes and grows throughout his life, and that people grow and change more through education, free exchange of ideas, exposure to the truth, than they do through isolation, shame, hatred…
In fact, the quickest way to make an asshole act like an asshole and become incapable of change is to treat him like an asshole.
I think if you are actually pro-peace, you must be pro-liberty, beause you would deny yourself the ability to coerce.
I think if you are actually pro-democracy, you are 100% supportive of free speech, because you would not use coercion and censorship to manufacture consensus and have a stranglehold on society.
I think anyone who believes in any value we can call “progressive” must first believe in the right of the individual to express themselves freely, and they should be secure enough in who they are to allow themselves to be challenged and to be ready to interact in good faith with others.
But there aren’t any Nazis on Exploding Heads. We banned one just the other day.
That sounds like a contradiction in terms. Unless you banned the only Nazi in existence it stands to reason there are likely to be others.
I think anyone who believes in any value we can call “progressive” must first believe in the right of the individual to express themselves freely, and they should be secure enough in who they are to allow themselves to be challenged and to be ready to interact in good faith with others.
But we know for a fact that fascists do not argue in good faith
That sounds like a contradiction in terms. Unless you banned the only Nazi in existence it stands to reason there are likely to be others.
It’s a tiny instance - yes, there has been an influx of new people, but it’s still absolutely nothing like it is here. If there are any, they are lurkers.
But we know for a fact that fascists do not argue in good faith
There are those who self-identify as progressives, anti-racists, feminists, anarchists, etc., who also do not argue in good faith and even use these progressive monikers to go as a sheep in wolves clothing…
Point being: you have to argue in good faith, and not worry so much about assessing what other people think or are trying to do.
But if your actual position really is as simplistic as
-> this guy is a Republican -> he’s a smooth talking Republican -> he’s a secret racist -> he’s a cryptofascist -> everything he says is a lie meant to advance his fascist agenda…
It’s actually you who is not engaging in good faith with anybody.
How incredibly telling that you leapt from Nazi to American Republican.
I don’t know anything about this instance and I’m right now only evaluating what the EH-member just posted above my response here.
I do not see any hate speech, I don’t see anyone disputing anyone else’s right to exist or live, I just see someone with strong belief in free speech. Unless somebody can point me to explicitly unlawful (hate alone is not forbidden, let’s not forget that! Thought crimes are fortunately not yet a thing!) behaviour, I will give the instance the benefit of the doubt… And so should do any reasonable and sound human being.
Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?
What a ridiculous question. “Is a stabbing really more hurtful than a gunshot?”
They’re both hurtful!
We can’t stop physical abuse in the real world by defederating with a hateful instance, but we can stop the hate speech from having an audience here.
Hateful content is routinely disguised as memes, “just asking questions”, “just a joke”, etc. Humans are human, and many of us are suggestible. There’s a reason Holocaust denial is literally illegal in Germany. If people hear something often enough, from enough people, it doesn’t matter what it is. They’ll start to wonder if it’s true.
It’s super easy to teach a child to hate, for instance. They believe everything they hear, and it’s very human to hate things and certain people. This doesn’t just go away when they hit the legal age to have an account here. Reddit allows 13 year olds to have an account. (Or is that Facebook? Whichever.) I don’t know what the official policy is of this instance or Lemmy in general, but the fewer 13 year olds we have reading literal hate speech, the better. It’s a black hole that it’s easy to get sucked into.
If every “good” instance blocks the hateful ones, then no one will see their content unless they go out of their way to sign up for that specific instance. That’s a good thing. It keeps the hate locked away where it’s hard to stumble into.
Now, what counts as hate? Whatever the admin decides. If the admin chooses to delegate that decision to the users, it’s still the admin choosing to do that. If you don’t like that, find a different instance.
Fuck hate. Fuck Nazis. Fuck the alt-right. Defederate them.
What a ridiculous question. “Is a stabbing really more hurtful than a gunshot?” They’re both hurtful!
Hyperbolic. Nobody is being shot, people feel offended for more or less valid reasons.
Hateful content is routinely disguised as memes, “just asking questions”, “just a joke”, etc
So? The burden of proof that this is hate is on you. Apart from this: Even if it was hateful, it’s not unlawful per se. If it becomes unlawful that’s a whole other topic.
It’s super easy to teach a child to hate, for instance.
Yes, children are children, they’re supposed to be stupid. They will hate another kid because it wears glasses, is fat, nerdy or because it’s Tuesday. You won’t change that, you just add another layer why certain kids will hate others. Hate because of hate. Doesn’t sound like a good plan.
If every “good” instance blocks the hateful ones, then no one will see their content unless they go out of their way to sign up for that specific instance. That’s a good thing. It keeps the hate locked away where it’s hard to stumble into.
Ah the hear no even, see no evil, speak no evil approach. Yeah that has always worked out pretty well, ask the French about Zemmour and Le Pen, the Germans about the AFD and so on.
Now, what counts as hate? Whatever the admin decides. If the admin chooses to delegate that decision to the users, it’s still the admin choosing to do that. If you don’t like that, find a different instance.
Ah there it is, the leftist authoritarian. Whatever Big Brother decides is good for me.
Fuck hate. Fuck Nazis. Fuck the alt-right. Defederate them.
Have a look at the state at which the right wing parties are re-emerging in Europe, look at Reassemblement National, Vox, AFD, etc etc.
That is only possible because people like you think that containment and oppression of dissenting discourse and opinion is a good thing. You’re the new Neville Chamberlain and I fear what the result of this new cowardice will be.
Ah there it is, the leftist authoritarian. Whatever Big Brother decides is good for me.
🤦♂️
Dear Lord, you are just grasping here. Go fight your straw man somewhere else. Each instance is run as a charity. The admin makes the rules. If you don’t like the rules, leave. If I don’t like the rules, I’ll leave. Take your techno-libertarian, infinite free speech bullshit somewhere else. Make your own instance where you are the benevolent dictator where your only rule is “Absolute freedom of speech for all”. Fucking christ…
I never said anything against “the admin makes the rules.” This is about users calling for defederation because “someone offended me on the internet.”
Looks like you’re exactly that kind of person and as you’ve proven yourself you’re absolutely incapable of engaging in a civil discussion. Feel free to leave… or participate, but if you do, people will disagree with you, no matter if that hurts your precious feelings or not.
I never said anything against “the admin makes the rules.”
The conversation:
“The admin makes the rules”
“You leftist authoritarian!”
“🤦♂️”
“I never said anything against ‘the admin makes the rules’”
It’s all there, black and white. Defederation is just another admin rule.
You think you’re being civil and you say shit like “There is it” and labeling me with a pejorative political affiliation on the basis of saying nothing more than “the admin makes the rules”. I’m calling you out on your bullshit. That’s not something you say in a civil conversation, and you know it. Don’t apologize. Don’t explain to me how it’s civil. Just stop talking.
When you call for an authority to get the bad offense banned from your view it’s a clear call for an authority to fix your life, because you’re not able to. This has nothing to do with an admin (team) having transparent rules about what they do or don’t allow on an instance.
On a different topic: Civil discussion and disagreement is encouraged, you’re trying to insult and disparage which is something I as moderator will not allow here. So either you follow the rules or I’ll have to start moderating your contributions here.
Ban me, hypocrite
Done.
I’m really starting to like the term ‘defederate’…it’s so much more descriptive and applicable than ‘censorship’ or ‘cancelling’. Me intentionally choosing not associate with you isn’t the same as me actively trying prevent you from speaking. Me choosing a group that is choosing not to associate with you doesn’t infringe on your rights in the slightest. You whining about the fact that no one wants to listen to you is so far away from censorship that it’s almost humorous to listen to folks trying to shoe-horn it into the conversation.
By ‘you’, I obviously (I hope) mean the people whining about being ‘defederated’, not the commenter I’m replying to.
I don’t want admins stepping between myself and other users, getting in the way of conversations. That’s why I left Reddit!
Don’t force your safe space on me. That’s actually hostile.
No one forced you to join this server. Don’t barge into others houses and re-arrange the furniture.
So many children.
The exact same idea applies to you. Except I don’t disparage people for sharing their opinions.
No one is forcing you. Join a different instance or host your own.
You can do the same.
He can do the same, but he’s not the one complaining about the furniture.
If you’re in a bar that you don’t like, it’s true that you can leave, or the people listening to you complain about the bar can leave, but it’s kind of obvious that you saying that is just your way of trying to make the bar annoying to everyone else so you can stay and make it a bar you like instead of going and finding a different one. That might be ‘a’ way to go about things, but it sure does take a persistently annoying person to make it happen. More likely you’ll just get kicked out of the bar because the bartender would rather keep the paying customers that are having fun around, rather than then bitchy ones who just won’t shut about about the decorations.
If you’re in a bar that you DO like, and the other patrons are discussing how to coordinate themselves, then obviously you would take part in that conversation.
And during that conversation, if a small subgroup constantly told you to “leave if you disagree,” then you might kindly suggest that they do the same, which would definitely not get you kicked out of the bar.
Very true, a civilized disagreement can certainly present that way. If that’s what I stumbled into I’d apologize for suggesting it was something else, maybe the level of discourse from related comment strings had me assuming the worse.
I have no issue with certain instances being defederated, so no need.
Should I ever feel the need though, I will kost definitely host a private instance.
Good comeback though mate.
It’s not a comeback because this isn’t a battle of clever insults. It’s a discussion about how to organize and interact.
You don’t have a problem with defederation, but if you DO have a problem with being connected to other instances… That’s the scenario where you can create your own siloed instance and block everybody.
I want to read everybody and talk to everybody.
You may have freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom to not listen to you.
Right, you can block me. But that’s different from denying other people from reading me, and denying me from reading other people.
Also, I’m not the one saying problematic stuff. I’m not afraid of being censored. I’m afraid of being denied access to censored material.
You’re not being denied access to censored material, you’re (mildly) suffering from a lack of access to some material from some locations. I could spin up an instance tomorrow that only federates with platforms that limit their discussion to expired gift cards, and that in no way reduces your access to platforms that (for some reason?) discuss other things, like ‘unexpired’ gift cards (why would anyone bother discussing those? who the hell knows?).
You seem to be confused by the popularity and open access of an instance to mean that it should or must be some democratic, freedom of speech led unmoderated landscape or it isn’t a legitimate platform and shouldn’t exist lest it ‘trick’ someone into thinking it is something it is not. You think because a forum ‘can’ federate with any other group, it ‘must’ federate with ‘all’ other groups, and that is simply not the case.
I agree but calls to have a diverse market place of content, even if that offends someone, never works. That died a long time ago on Facebook, Reddit, Youtube. Twitter survives (kinda) only because Elon Musk owns it (who knows how long it will last). 4chan’s POL only exisits because its been grandfathered in and people who don’t like pol flock away and the people who don’t like Reddit flock to it. I agree with you because the march of safe spaces will continue uninterupted.
If 4chan’s moderation policy is superior in your opinion, why aren’t you there?
I am there. I am also on youtube, twitter and facebook. I can use more than one social media service. Don’t you?
Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?
Just Americans want this stuff. It’s a part of their culture.
