It was banned on Reddit because it is racist, hatefull and spread Conspiracies.
In my new community I expect the exclution of racist communities. It is easy now with defederation. Nazis can do whatever they want on their instances, but the instances I want to be part of should not amplify their shit and flush it into our timelines.
The instance-admin of !thedonald@sh.itjust.works did not reply to my message. Big instances seem not to defederate with them.
The new TD may not be a success, the point is not to give Nazis a platform like it is happening now. Fans of TD are racists.
Where are the instances that show face against racism?
edit: to contact the admins: @donut @TheDude @smorks
edit2: @TheDude deleted the community :)
You must log in or register to comment.
Just downvote them if you see them. On reddit they abused certain features to get to the front page and once that method of manipulation was killed by reddit you rarely saw their posts.
Mate just block it and move on. # You can’t stop communities from being what they want to be. It will just form somewhere else. There’s a fine line between keeping illegal stuff, harmful trolling and bots off the instance and just straight up policing free speech. At least there everyone knows where they are and can block them once.
I’d much rather that than play whackamole everytime the Donald pops up under a new banner.
I’m not informed enough on Trump to know if “Trump supporter” automatically implies “Nazi”. The r/TD community itself was cancer, I believe. Still - for the sake of the argument, let’s pretend that all Trump supporters are Nazi, and that the comm is about people genuinely supporting Trump.
The main problem here is that you got exactly two subscribers in a rather large instance. From the PoV of other instances, to defederalise shitjustworks is the same as using a nuclear bomb to get rid of a cockroach. At least at this stage, IMO actions in other instances should be towards that community and its users, not the whole instance.
And, within shitjustworks: if the admins have a laissez faire approach, I think that actions are up to the users.
Also I wouldn’t generally link my own blog here, given that I use it mostly to vent, but this might be food for thought for the folks here. I think that analogies between ants in a kitchen and undesired users are specially useful: you don’t want to nuke the kitchen because of a single ant, but you don’t want to leave it do as it pleases either.
If the admins have a laissez faire approach, then they can go fuck themselves. The difference between a nuke and defederation (well, there are many, but the main one here) is that defederation can be undone. If the admins don’t like their instance being isolated, they can fix the problem by getting rid of the comm. If they are that committed to allowing the comm, then it is correct to keep them defederated.
The one caveat I will give is that it would be incumbent on the other instances to follow through on overturning the blacklist – and making sure their peer instances do – if shitjustworks actually does comply eventually.
If the admins have a laissez faire approach, then they can go fuck themselves.
Note that, by laissez faire approach, I don’t mean “do nothing at all”; that’s incompetence, and incompetent admins go fuck themselves, as you said. For me, laissez faire means “keep a close watch on the situation, and intervene if necessary, but otherwise let the userbase handle it”.
And in this case you got a rather engaged community, who’s most likely prone to engage those Nazi, and tell them to fuck off. Is admin intervention necessary in this case?
I’m not sure if a laissez faire approach would be a good approach in this specific case, but it’s generally a good “default” - often people managing communities cause more harm than good when they’re trying to proactively solve issues that didn’t appear yet.
The difference between a nuke and defederation (well, there are many, but the main one here) is that defederation can be undone.
That’s a great point - the reversibility makes the option less drastic. Still annoying for legitimate users and admins of other instances.
Note that, by laissez faire approach, I don’t mean “do nothing at all”; that’s incompetence, and incompetent admins go fuck themselves, as you said. For me, laissez faire means “keep a close watch on the situation, and intervene if necessary, but otherwise let the userbase handle it”.
“If necessary” is doing all of the work there. By your meaningless definition of the word, I agree that’s a good approach, but you’re letting insinuation occupy the entire point in dispute. We both know what “laissez-faire” actually means, and I think the Gilded Age showed us what a shit approach it is.
And in this case you got a rather engaged community, who’s most likely prone to engage those Nazi, and tell them to fuck off. Is admin intervention necessary in this case?
Yes, it is. I am quite familiar with how these dynamics work – I followed r/cth for about a year before it was quarantined. It was probably the most-hated sub of its time outside of literal Nazi subs (remember TD was long-inactive at that point). People complained about it all over the place for a variety of reasons, both good and bad faith. With all the controversy, do you know what it never was before it got quarantined? And honestly not even before it was banned? Neutralized. The vocal hatred against it fed its growth, and the userbase was quite aware of this fact and took advantage of it actively. When it was finally banned, the slide in Reddit’s entire user culture on the popular and political subs was palpable, and that transformation took maybe a month.
Now, unlike the Reddit admins, I won’t equivocate between TD and cth, they were not the same in a pat little horseshoe theory conception because horseshoe theory is horseshit. That said, it nonetheless stands as a glaringly obvious counter example to your flimsy market solution – as does most of Reddit’s history before that, with various places much worse than cth festering quite aggressively until the admins banned it, either for their own reasons – like cth – or external political reasons starting from jailbait to fatpeoplehate through to WatchPeopleDie.
I’m not sure if a laissez faire approach would be a good approach in this specific case, but it’s generally a good “default” - often people managing communities cause more harm than good when they’re trying to proactively solve issues that didn’t appear yet.
Market solutions rarely work except for the rich and their lackeys, and the people who propose relying on them without any specific evidence should be regarded with suspicion. I’ve heard these libertarian spiels a thousand times before and, well, the only mistake I’ve ever made with libertarian ideology is not having enough contempt for it – which I say having never respected it to begin with.
That’s a great point - the reversibility makes the option less drastic. Still annoying for legitimate users and admins of other instances.
Oh, it’s annoying is it? That’s such a shame, that it’s annoying. I’ll be sure to tell the minorities pushed out of the Nazi bar that preventative measures are possible but really should not be implemented because they would be annoying.
Please, give a stronger tell that you don’t give a shit for the people this more gravely impacts that you acknowledge how reversible this is and yet think that it’s still too much of a hassle because it’s annoying.
Relevant details: 1) the community was removed already, so I’ll discuss the implications if it wasn’t; 2) I’ll quote things out of order; 3) there’s a TL;DR: near the end.
By your meaningless definition of the word […]
We both know what “laissez-faire” actually means
By “laissez faire” I do not mean the economic approach. I was using the expression more literally; roughly “let them handle it”, or “you let do”. This is clear by context, since the topic does not revolve around macroeconomics¹ (“market” this, “market” there). Context, use it.
The definition is not useless, as it’s also clear that we were assigning different values to the expression. Words and expressions don’t have “actual” (intrinsic, well-defined and immutable) meanings, they change per person and sometimes per utterance². Learn to handle this.
That said: onwards I’ll call it OIAN (Only Intervene As Necessary), to avoid ambiguity, since you struggle with this sort of thing. The underlying reasoning stays the same no matter which words are used to convey it, be it laissez faire or OIAN or wug or waka-waka or gkfdshjs.
and I think the Gilded Age showed us what a shit approach it is.
After a quick check in Wikipedia: why do you assume that I know random historical events from random countries across the globe? I’m not from USA. Stop trying to build a digital wall, e-Trump style³.
With that out of the way:
“If necessary” is doing all of the work there.
Yet another assumption: that “all the work” won’t change from instance to instance, and that you know exactly what is supposed to be.
Under an OIAN approach, confronting a Nazi who’s “playing along” (for now) should be up to the community. If it’s OIAN for the Nazi, it’s OIAN for everyone else. Three things might happen:
- The Nazi leaves on his own. Problem solved.
- The Nazi starts breaking the rules of the place (including “don’t promote hate”). They do it often when confronted enough. Then admin intervention is deserved and necessary (as non-admins can’t ban.)
- The Nazi neither leaves, nor break the local rules. He won’t be able to bring new Nazi into the table, with the community battering him.
Under an “it’s up to the admins to tie the shoes of the baby users” approach, the admins themselves should dictate the following:
- That Donald support = hate, thus against the rules; or
- That wearing a clear provocative username = trolling, thus against the rules⁴;
- etc.
This kind of “we dictate this, we dictate that” piles up over time, leading to abuse of a strict approach. Plenty examples of that from Reddit⁵: user got a problem? “MODS, SOLVE IT FOR ME”. Mod got a problem? “ADMINS, SOLVE IT FOR ME”. It leads into powermods, rogue admins, huge lists of rules that got broken all the time (each to address a new tiny issue) and opening even more grey areas for selective enforcement. And guess what, you’re empowering the admins in detriment of the users by that.
Yes, it is. I am quite familiar with how these dynamics work – I followed r/cth for about a year before it was quarantined. […] and that transformation took maybe a month.
Emphasis mine - even if we disregard that this is a big “chrust me” (anecdotal evidence does not lead to meaningful conclusions - bring data or arguments, otherwise you’re just calling your reader gullible/stupid with this sort of anecdote), there’s a second issue here: it disregards that r/chapotraphouse was an already established community, full of people reinforcing each other’s behaviour. The TD @ shitjustworks however had literally one active user.
If we got an actual gathering of people in TD @ shitjustworks, then perhaps the dynamic would be similar. Perhaps. I’m not too eager to be an assumer.
Now, unlike the Reddit admins, I won’t equivocate between TD and cth […]
I believe that I get what you mean by mentioning CTH - it’s an example for the dynamic. I won’t assume crap like “than u think dat TD = CTH? lol”
If I had to take a guess, I think that the admins in Reddit didn’t really equate TD=CTH. They banned CTH to throw a bone to the right-wing users, because they still wanted those users in their platform; they just didn’t want that content due to the advertisers not liking it. That should not happen in the Lemmyverse, as those users themselves are undesirable.
Oh, it’s annoying is it? That’s such a shame, that it’s annoying. I’ll be sure to tell the minorities pushed out of the Nazi bar that preventative measures are possible but really should not be implemented because they would be annoying.
OK, now you’re just distorting what I said, for the sake of yet other three fallacies: appeal to emotion, extended analogy, and strawman.
I’m not saying “don’t kick out the Nazi”. I’m saying “letting the users kick out the Nazi might be an option”. Is the difference clear?
Think on the differences between the RL bar and a Lemmy instance, not just the similarities. I’ll list three for you:
- A bar is not a collective effort. It’s a business, with a specific group of people being responsible for it. A lemmy instance however should not be seen as the admin’s business, but as a collective effort.
- The barman likely knew far better how his clients would [not] behave towards the Nazi, to decide that the action was actually necessary, after years working there. How old is the instance in question?
- Someone can (and should) politicise an instance to not put up with Nazi. A bar cannot politicise its customers to do the same.
And there’s a potential fourth difference that I brushed off in the other comment, but might as well address here: given that I give as many craps about USA internal politics as I do for the Mongolian ones - for the same reason - you gotta convince me that “TD supporter → certainly a Nazi”. Otherwise we’re dealing with a heuristic, not a confirmed fact⁶.
Please, give a stronger tell that you don’t give a shit for the people this more gravely impacts that you acknowledge how reversible this is and yet think that it’s still too much of a hassle because it’s annoying.
Please give me a stronger tell that I’m not dealing with a context-illiterate and an assumer, who’s eager to churn out fallacies like there was no tomorrow, and eager to disingenuously (or worse, idiotically) assume words onto the others’ mouths, as you consistently did across your comment.
Anyway, answering your request: the impact of that “community” with its sole active user posting crap there would be close to zero, even to the marginalised groups. There’s a bigger issue in his username than the community itself, as that username would be seen outside the community. The actual concern would be if the user brought others like him there. That would only happen if nobody confronted him.
I hope that the above is already enough to show that I’m actually considering the impact on those people, when I’m saying that defederation and admin action might be unnecessary. Past that, your “prove that you aren’t guilty of siding with the ants” is irrelevant.
TL;DR:
The admins are not your parents. “ADMINS, I CAN’T CONFRONT THE NAZI BY MYSELF” is not support to marginalised groups, it’s to act like a Reddit baby. A kid sees the ant in the kitchen and says “MUM! I SAW AN ANT! KILL IT!”; the adult crushes it.
Also, stop dealing with marginalised groups as if they were “fragile little things, who can’t defend themselves unless big admin patronises them”. That’s perverse incentive - you’re disempowering them. You might have “good intentions” doing so but perhaps you should pave Hell with them.
If you don’t want to be a burden in online communities, and a fucking waste of time for the other posters, then learn how to take context into account when interpreting what others say, and stop
Learn how to take context into account when interpreting what other people say, like a decent person would, and unlike a redditor.
- Nota bene: given that I follow Marxian economy I do not agree with “laissez faire economy”.
- I can go further than that using Pragmatics and Semantics, but it would be off-topic and… frankly I don’t think that you’re able to follow it.
- That’s one of the few things that I remember from that guy. It sounded so unfeasible that I don’t really know if his supporters actually backed the idea up.
- Note that the only active poster there had an username mocking the left.
- Be careful with my conclusion here - there’s an issue on the data that I’m using to back it up. Find which.
- The shitty consequences of dealing with people through heuristics should be rather obvious.
Footnotes first:
-
It’s hilarious to imagine what kind of Marxist retains the magnitude liberal brainworms you display there. Would you like to tell me what sect you identify with? I’m just fascinated to find out, since your line of reasoning is completely against ML ideology. Are you one of Richard Wolff’s spawn, maybe?
-
I’m sure you feel like a big boy but I’m familiar with the prescriptivism vs descriptivism debate, don’t worry
-
What the hell are you talking about here? The Gilded Age was a ~30 year period in America following the Civil War where the government went full classical liberal on its non-regulation of the economy, which produced all the famous robber barons like JP Morgan, from which we inherit the classic image of such figures, which went on to inform basically every political cartoon ever along with the mascot of Monopoly. It spawned or popularized immensely infamous practices such as “company towns” and “scrip”, along with its own genre of literature (see Stephen Crane). It’s fine to not be educated on such matters but it’s literally the most well-known era in American history other than the Great Depression or a war (back when America’s domestic society was even culturally involved in wars).
-
N/A
-
Whoops, no citation, not even a name. Don’t give a shit. CTH moderated itself pretty well, the admins just hated it (and the neoliberal userbase of broader Reddit).
-
I never called TD people Nazis. This is an irrelevant tangent, what I was talking about was the nature of reactionary cesspits in general, not Nazis specifically. I don’t care what flavor of reactionary someone is, I don’t like any of them.
Anyway, most of your post is just listing informal fallacies and I have no interest in entertaining high-school level bullshit when it’s tediously rendered, so I’ll just pick out a few more parts:
Just to clarify, my point of the laissez-faire comparison is not that using that term makes you a libertarian, but that it was interesting how it corresponded to the very libertarian-like ideology you expressed in your arguments. More on that later.
even if we disregard that this is a big “chrust me” (anecdotal evidence does not lead to meaningful conclusions - bring data or arguments, otherwise you’re just calling your reader gullible/stupid with this sort of anecdote)
It’s ridiculous to dismiss cth out of hand as an “anecdote” when it represents years of interaction on the website with what was, for a period of a bit more than a year, the largest extremist community on the website and easily, easily the most active. Treating it as a though it were a single data point equivalent to other extremist subreddits would in fact be warping the information available against what would be a reasonable representation of its magnitude. TD is the only stronger example due to how long it was active unless you want to get into the old Reddit Lore of fatpeoplehate or whatever.
The admins are not your parents. “ADMINS, I CAN’T CONFRONT THE NAZI BY MYSELF” is not support to marginalised groups, it’s to act like a Reddit baby. A kid sees the ant in the kitchen and says “MUM! I SAW AN ANT! KILL IT!”; the adult crushes it.
Also, stop dealing with marginalised groups as if they were “fragile little things, who can’t defend themselves unless big admin patronises them”. That’s perverse incentive - you’re disempowering them. You might have “good intentions” doing so but perhaps you should pave Hell with them.
This – and how you talked about the Nazi bar issue before – is a strange case of equivocation that seems almost deliberately obfuscatory. If I could crush the mosquito myself, I would, but because this is a forum and I am merely a normal user, I cannot and the community cannot ban them. The admins are the only people who have that power, so the best course of action (since a poll would be open to manipulation and those fuckers at beehaw wouldn’t even blink before doing so) is to have admins use their power with the consent of the governed and for the governed to become ungovernable if the admins act unilaterally against the popular consensus.
In a similar way, patrons running the Nazis out of the bar would be illegal on many levels. The owner is the only one who is legally protected in doing so because it is his property, so he can pick up his bat and say in so many words “Leave or I will consider you a trepasser and beat you to a pulp” where a patron would be easily charged with a crime for making such a threat. Now, could the patrons act illegally and take things in their own hands anyway? Sure, but just like the difference between real futball and a Fifa video game, breaking the law in reality is possible while breaking the rules in a “programmed space” generally isn’t. I could hypothetically strike a Nazi with a hammer, cops be damned. I cannot ban a Nazi here if the site does not give me permission, it literally just can’t be done.
I fully support arming minority communities in real life. There is no way to smuggle a banhammer to a non-mod.
Also, the idea that supporting minorities is “babying them” is just asinine. Sitting by as they are attacked is not an example of being an ally, and forcing them to fend for themselves in the interest of what may as well be “protecting their honor as warriors” doesn’t do shit except consign them to miserable lives of fighting in their own defense no matter how successful they are. That is why, in civil society, the main thing social minorities typically fight for are legal protections that make it so they can avoid those fights or make them easier to win! Black people in general don’t seek to repeal the 1968 Civil Rights Act because the concept of a hate crime is “patronizing” to their ability to … what? Go catch racial aggressors on their own? Fuck off with that “the Democrats are the real racists” shit. The Democrats are indeed real racists, but so are Republicans.
By the way:
perverse incentive
Are you really going to tell me you’re not some kind of Hayekian? Between your general lines of reasoning, your sophomoric list of wikipedia fallacies, and turns of phrase like this, you really, really seem to be a libertarian.
It’s hilarious to imagine what kind of Marxist retains the magnitude liberal brainworms
If you genuinely fail to spot the difference between what I said and what someone who [ipsis ungulis] “retains the magnitude liberal brainworms” would say, it means that you’re such a failure at basic reading comprehension that you can be safely ignored as noise. (There’s a second idiocy in the same excerpt, but I’ll leave for the others to catch it.)
-
Currently blocking everyone that downvotes this post, wish me luck!
Took me a while :-)
Where is that info available?
If you’re on kbin hover over “more” below your comment, click activity and then look at “reduces” which are the downvotes. I’m unsure how to do it on lemmy though I will have to look.
Edit: same works on posts (all posts not just yours)
Thank you!
Careful, some people might be downvoting because they don’t want the community to get attention
True, and I thought of that as well, but I’ll just have to take the chance that 1 of those 16 people is like you said because I don’t want to have anything to do with the other 15
Your numbers may be backwards though, that group of people aren’t really early adopters
Plus they’ve been banned for a while and have a few platforms of their own for a while now
Well anyone who doesn’t support that community should either upvote the post or not vote at all I don’t care if this post gives that community attention, let the users that support Trump go over there so that we know where they are. Makes it easier to get rid of all of them at once.
I just want to be proactive, so if my blockhammer hits someone who is not in favor of that community thats their problem but really I am not a power user so neither of us would miss out on anything anyways.
Some of us find defederating worse than the Donald. Block the community and move on.
Allowing the community to exist is not the same as supporting what it stands for.
A lot of people including myself, do not really care about Donald Trump (not from USA), but just supports free speech in general.
If you don’t care about Trump you wouldn’t miss that community anyways. The Venn diagram between apathy and support might as well be a dot in a circle. Free speech should have limits tolerating intolerance is stupid and has been proven time and time again, it’s sad that people just forget history. I’m from Germany and I still do not support the regressive party of the USA.
I never noticed it being banned as I never cared about it. People who noticed are people who interacted with them, either supporting it or going there to get offended. But one of the reasons leaving reddit is censorship of different opinions, I don’t want the same to happen here.
I saw plenty of leftist being intolerant, but noone thought about censoring them. Being from a country that had great casualties due to nazi invasions, I am careful to who I am calling a nazi. Leftist calling everyone they disagree with a nazi, is trivializing how horrible those people really were.
Thanks for doing me the favor. Since I will get blocked shortly let me just say before I go, Donald Trump is the biggest piece of shit ever elected. He is a national embarrassment and you all look like fucking sheep following him as he steals your money and makes fun of you! Peace out dumb asses!
I’d imagine this is one of the many reasons why beehaw went ahead and defederated from sh.itjust.works. It’s a bit TOO lenient over there in some ways.
Nah. Beehaw just has an agenda to push. I’m glad they defederate though. I want nothing to do with those Nazis.
Agreed. And Beehaw didn’t say they were kicking any instance to the curb permanently. They’re simply waiting on Lemmy to add more effective moderation tools, like the ability to defederate communities rather than entire instances, and for bot checks to become the norm.
Users aren’t tied to communities, but instances.
Yes, but what we’re talking about here is how to effectively target and limit violence, bigotry, hate speech, etc., and that happens best at the community level not the instance level. Let’s say you have something like this:
- MixedBag.social - a popular fictitious instance that has some good communities and one really bad one
- MixedBag.social/c/BigotsRUs - a community of bigoted content that YourInstance.com doesn’t want to deal with
- Users of MixedBag.social - a mixed bag themselves, who mostly flocked there because of open signups
How do we limit harm to YourInstance.com?
-
The Users: Most of the MixedBag users are harmless and contribute to the growth and diversity of the fediverse (including YourInstance), so defederating them is a last resort. But what about the BigotsRUs subscribers? On Reddit, some mods use bots to ban or mute people subscribed to problematic subreddits. We could try something similar here, but that’s not the only option. After all, I live over here, not in the community where they’re trash-talking. It’s when they bring their shit into my house that I get pissed. If they put on their Sunday Best over here and want to have actual conversations, I’m fine with that. That more tolerant approach has the benefit of not ostracising and radicalizing users who are on the fence and just hang out there on occasion for the memes. So basically, ban the bad actors when they cross the line while on your turf, but leave the rest alone.
-
The Community: If BigotsRUs is poorly moderated, frequently spews hate, and its inclusion in All harms YourInstance’s users, that’s what Remove is for. As an admin, you can remove communities from the feed without affecting users or the instance, which feels like the first and best step to handling most issues.
-
The Instance: Like I said, defederation is the nuclear option that impacts all communities and all users on MixedBag.social, so I’d rather limit that to a last resort. However, sometimes the instance itself if the problem by either encouraging bad actors or centering around a topic that has no place in your instance’s vision. For example, what if you’re running an orthodox religious instance for your friends and want to defederate from the porn-only lemmyNSFW.com? Or what if your instance is being overrun by bots from LaxSignUps.social and you don’t have a big enough mod team to separate out the trash? For me, that’s the ideal use case for instance-wide defederation, and it’s the main reason Beehaw is defederating from others. Yes, they’re protective of their culture, but right now it’s mostly about the small mod team’s inability to filter out spam from instances with lax signups.
What does it about the other users in MixedBag that they are ok on the same instance as BigotsRUs?
If BigotsRUs was formed on the instance I was on, I would be talking to the admins on banning BigotsRUs before looking for a different instance.
It’s an absolute lie that they are just concerned about hatespeech – albeit one that the admins themselves very actively promote. They pretend to be ideologically neutral, even going as far as saying “beehaw is just a collection of individuals”, an ironically Thatcherite statement that suits them quite well.
That’s a pretty big accusation. I don’t have enough information to say one way or the other and have just read a handful of posts from the Beehaw mods, so I’d appreciate some context and direct evidence if there is any. From what I can tell, they’ve never pretended to be ideologically neutral, and seek to actively defend minority rights and push back against what they view as fascist movements.
Thankfully they had the evidence pinned for some time:
Beehaw is a community of individuals and therefore does not have any specific political affiliation.
Later:
Some of the instances that we have chosen to defederate with have explicit political stances and ideologies. Their political stance and ideology had nothing to do with the choice to defederate. The choice to defederate was based on the amount of hate speech present on the instance and/or explicitly endorsing it.
And there’s more but you can just read it yourself:
https://beehaw.org/post/524300?scrollToComments=true
Obviously I support cracking down on hate speech, you can see my activity throughout this thread, which consists entirely of me doing that while taking maybe two or three asides to knock beehaw when someone else mentioned it. What I don’t support is taking the absurd position that it’s not a political stance.
Of course, this all works as an excellent bit of smoke and mirrors for an audience of credulous radlibs to whom you don’t want to confess you are splitting with instances that are decidedly to your left – such as Hexbear.net , the only instance which actually has site-mandated use of self-identified pronouns, which was put on the blacklist pre-emptively before it had federated with anyone (and it still hasn’t) for reasons that the userbase are left to conclude are “hate speech” or its “endorsement”.
I hope that newcomers to the fediverse come to understand that defederation is a feature, not a bug.
Admins can remove single remote communities instead of having to defederate the whole instance completely.
How does that work, exactly? I though defederation at the instance level was the only real tool.
If you’re an admin you can visit any remote community and click on “remove”. You can even remote comments or posts from being visible to users of your instance. It’s not ideal because it’s on a case by case basis instead of it being an instance-wide silence which is often a better solution that doesn’t require you to hunt down remote instances and remove them manually while it also doesn’t break federation.
It is easy now with defederation.
De-federation isn’t the tool to solve this specific problem. That community has 34 posts, all by a single user, and under 30 total comments across all threads. I cannot find a single post or comment in that community that would violate any rules on lemmy.ml.
A single user posting content in a community that shares a name with a banned community on another social media platform seems like a very very low bar to push for de-federation.
This is like saying that it’s no big deal if you only have a little cancer.
It’s more like saying that we shouldn’t jump to amputation as the first step after diagnosis.
Personally, I’m subscribing to the belief that the fediverse’s attribute of “true censorship is impossible” is a benefit, not a curse. Every prior example of censorship has just morphed into “advertiser palatable”. Which is bad for everyone.
More than happy to have access to instances that will take the kind of drastic action you’re suggesting, access to my own “block” function, etc. Let them come.
The fediverse will inevitably host some messed up stuff. Counting it a blessing that those people have a clear place to go to and sequester themselves off.
So ultimately? More than happy to have an instance that agrees with this extreme anti-censorship posture. Sh.itjustworks is fine in my books. I can block the community, just like I could block subreddits on Reddit without abandoning the whole platform. Hell, even write a script to block everyone who’s subscribed to the community. The power is yours now, and nobody can take that away. That’s the fediverse.
I think this type of posts will have an opposite impact to what we want, we are just giving it the attention it needs to become what it was on Reddit, my recommendation? Block it immediately.
I had no idea it existed so I went ahead and subscribed. I like to get my news from across the spectrum.
Doing nothing and hope that not many will find them? No, spotlight on them. The instance has to act.
I understand, there’s many people that want nothing to do with a community like that, me included, but ultimately it will being attention to it, because some sympathize with these points of view. Hopefully the admins of shitjustworks take measures to make sure there’s no racism on their instance.
Antifa members have commited actual crimes, including some that costed lives, and supported those who did so. They use terror tactics on a regular basis coercing and silencing others. Even though I think their behavior is more fascistic than any current far right organization, I don’t think they should be banned or silenced. In any case, I don’t expect them to be banned here in any shape or form because they support and enforce the message currently approved by every major public institution and corporation.
OP may come across a little alarmist, but it’s really easy for online communities to become Nazi bars if the admins aren’t carefully weeding out the ne’er-do-wells. Especially in places with open signups. Taking a hands-off approach and simply hoping that everyone is going to be a mature adult and behave themselves is effectively voting to surrender the site to assholes.
And yeah, they follow “the rules”, and free speech and all that, until they don’t. The thing to keep in mind is that these are not folks who, as a community, are interested in engaging in good-faith discussion. They are looking for a platform to spread disinformation and troll the libz, and any platform that facilitates it is also complicit.
Actively purging communities of reactionaries is pretty important and the hands-off attitude that some Free Speech Warriors inherited from Reddit advocate for is only going to spread reaction. If they care so much about Free Speech, they can go back to their pedophile website and talk about how r/jailbait needed to be kept up for the sake of free speech.
Users definitely need the ability to block entire instances themselves. That way we don’t have to rely on others to do it for us or potentially block content we may want to see.
I don’t give a shit what they do.
I can block them, just like every other community I don’t want in my timeline.
Hopefully at some point, if we see entire servers being a problem and not just the one community on that server,
we can have the ability to block the server in its entirety, even our server doesn’t decide to de-fed with them.
Ideally, kbin will allow us to decide for ourselves what servers/communities to block instead of deciding for us.
You’re probably going to have a bad time in the Fediverse if you’re hoping to avoid viewpoints you don’t agree with entirely. The best advice I can give you for now is to just block that community and move on with your life. As much as I hate TD and its members, the sh.itjust.works admin has the right to administer their instance however they want. If they end up with a sufficiently toxic total userbase where their users are causing problems on other instances to the point they are a net negative, they will end up being defederated by other more reasonable instances. Beehaw is being pretty aggressive with defederation for things like this, so if you’re looking for the safest of spaces in the Lemmyverse they really might be more your speed. Or you can start your own personal instance and defederate whoever you want 🤷
hoping to avoid viewpoints you don’t agree with entirely
the viewpoint “these immigrants need to be gunned down and trans people need to be eradicated” are not things i “dont agree with entirely” they are a vile evil toxin that cannot be tolerated.
the sh.itjust.works admin has the right to administer their instance however they want
yeah obviously, idk who is pretending otherwise?
You have no room to talk, your instance bends over backwards to be a safe space for neoliberals who support unipolarity and the exploitation of the third world.
“But some users disavow the US, etc.”
Yeah, but virtually all of them nonetheless parrot the State Department’s talking points about its enemies. That token “both sides” bullshit only supports the status quo while undermining the possibility of a positive alternative.
