The instance seems to be mostly right wing trolls. I know defederating is unpopular but I don't think much is to be lost in this case and it can save the mods some headaches.
Edit: the response on exploding-heads.com to my reporting of transphobia. Courtesy of the "second in command"
Yeah I must confess I recently went over there and agitated them a bit. I just wanted to see what their deal was because I saw a few of them over here.
TLDR they are basically like r/thedonald, libertarian types. Use slurs as a badge of honor. Angry, sad people. Fully in favor of defederation. But I get that it's early days, and defederation is a sensitive topic. I just don't see any path to that server becoming something of value that I'd want to interact with.
I dont see why defederation is seen as a sensitive topic.
Its a great feature, designed for specifically this purpose.
Over time people will migrate between instances and land where they fit. Some people want to be abrasive cunts, and they will land with the other abrasive cunts. Thats great, they have an instance they can do what they want on.
For the rest of us though, we dont want to see their bad faith articles and abrasiveness on our feeds. No one is being limited in their speech, but they might be limited in their reach. If they want to expand their reach, they can join a more broadly federated instance and ditch the bad faith arguments and abrasiveness.
Its the kids table at the dinner party. You can join the adults table if you behave in a way that is suitable for the adults, if not go back and play with the kids and everyone is happy.
The example that introduced me to federation was like an instance getting overrun with Nazis, and everyone deciding to just cut that instance loose; let it float alone as "the Nazi instance" that nobody has to interact with.
I thought that stuff like bad actors and assholes was one of the main reasons for the idea of federation, really surprised how many people thought differently
I think people would be surprised at the amount of instances that have already been broadly defederated.
Its just that the beehaw defederation is the first "big" incident since broader adoption, and thats for very understandable reasons with a roadmap to refederation already in place.
The only people who get angry about an instance being defederated are the types who want to act in bad faith. They know if they join the instance they got defederated from they will be banned if they spruik the shit that got the instance defederated in the first place, so they are angry that no one wants to listen to their shit.
It sucks for legitimate users that get caught up, but if youre a good user willing to participate in good faith, just join another instance and carry on.
In Beehaw's case especially I saw a lot of people who came off more that they took being defederated personally or that they felt entitled to Beehaw's communities than anything
like I still can't understand why people found it so abhorrent that Beehaw temporarily defederated; they literally stated why and explicitly stated that it's probably not permanent
like they made it clear, people just didn't bother to read for some reason
I respect beehaw's ability to defederate and their decisions to do with their community as they please. I don't agree with their actions and I don't think they did the right thing. But that's why I did not and will not sign up on beehaw.
But if people start defederating each other over slight disagreements? I think that's bad for the idea of federation in general.
My perspective isn't so much that I'd like to act in bad faith, but rather that I do not wish for others to dictate who I may speak to or what beliefs I may hold. It's one thing to have a standard of civility, respect, and polite discourse and to avoid those who do not act as such. It's another to ban/censor/close off people over a disagreement of perspective.
Defederation is top-level admins building a wall, forcing people to either have two accounts to interact with both groups, or to move and find somewhere that isn't defederated. If you don't want to see certain content or talk to someone, why not just block them? why block for everyone? I don't get that view. I avoid signing up on instances like beehaw because I know they're quick to defederate. if you want that sorta thing, why not go join them?
Your "right" to expression doesnt extend to forcing other people to listen to you.
I dont know why that seems to be such a common thought.
You have a "want" - in that you want to be able to say whatever you want to whoever you want.
Other people also have a "want" - to not have to see that shit when they are just chilling on the internet.
We find ourselves at a point where we are on a platform that allows problematic places to be excluded. People there can still say and do what they want, the majority just doesnt have to see or deal with it anymore.
No one is dictating what you can and cant do or say, you are free to do that.
What defederation does is create a place for people who dont care about that shit to exist without having to see it. By defederating at an instance level, it takes that burden away from the individual user and creates a place that they want to be at. If you dont want to be there thats fine.
Its only a problem with people who think like yourself because you want to push your views onto people who arent interested. You want your views to dictate how another community behaves. You dont get to dictate that though. You're welcome to join if you want to follow their rules, if not find somewhere with rules that you agree with.
As for myself agreeing with beehaw, I interact with that instance regularly. I dont need an account there because I have accounts elsewhere that are federated with them. If those other accounts became defederated, id weigh up the pros and cons and create a local account if I wanted to continue the interaction.
This is a fundamental, core aspect of the fediverse. If being restricted from places that you arent welcome at is something you dont like, I sincerely think the fediverse is not for you. That said, I cant think of many places that are for people who want to push their views onto unwilling others, because the places that spruik that arent attractive to the people who are sick of that shit.
There are places for the type of content you want to engage with. There are even places that are halfway, where people from both sides of this divide meet and converse. The problem only exists when you want to bring that shit into places where it isnt welcome, and the fediverse has been designed from the ground up to alleviate that problem for the majority of people who arent interested.
Indeed. That's why the block button exists. If you don't want to hear someone, you can block them. But if two people wish to speak, why do you feel like you should prevent them from speaking to each other?
No. My "want" is to be able to discuss things, understand where people are coming from, and arrive at something that is mutually beneficial. The best way to do that is to avoid censorship nazis.
Yes, I'm fully in favor of people curating their own experience, not the experience of others.
Actually it prevents other people who do care from seeing it. Defederation is not a "personal block button" it's a wall preventing anyone on the instances from communicating.
The opposite, actually. I'm in favor of people blocking who they want. We are both on kbin. If I wish to see posts by those exploding head guys and you do not, what do we do? If we defederate, you are forcing your desires onto me. If you just block them yourself personally, then you get what you want, and I get what I want. win win, right? So I don't understand why you would defederate, rather than just block?
The opposite. I've spoken many times that beehaw and sh.itjust.works are entirely free to do what they want. I don't agree with those communities defederating, but naturally they're gonna do what they're gonna do.
If you like beehaw's federation policies, and not kbin's, why not use beehaw instead of kbin? Surely that is the obvious thing to do?
My concern is over my own instance preventing me from speaking to others. If beehaw wishes to block kbin, I'm not gonna cry over it, I can speak to people elsewhere. But if kbin starts defederating, then I have an issue. I believe most places will wish to have open and civil discussions and federate with more or less everyone. This is how kbin currently does things, and I support that. But if everyone is just going to defederate each other, why bother with federation at all?
Or perhaps you just didn't see those who don't bother engaging in conflict?
I fully understand why you don't expect to find content there in the future, but is that a good argument to deny access to those who already have?
Exploding heads have gotten subscribers from here as well. There's an extensive backlog of topics some people find quite important - even if others don't.
I don't have a problem with you personally. You've been fairly reasonable in our interactions. But the people on your server are not great. Maybe you should make an account here.
I don't care for them myself, but unless they're causing problems outside for everyone else, why defederate?
If there are communities you don't want to see, you can block them as they appear.
The argument being that if they aren't blocked at an instance-level, due to how the federation works, those comments could very easily spill over into these threads. Those that do want to participate in good faith would need to create an account with an instance that is federated.
How do you block them? Not a feature on kbin yet as far as I know.
If you'd like to block them here on kbin, go to to their domain page:
https://kbin.social/d/exploding-heads.com
and then click the "cancel" circle/crossout button over in the sidebar next to "subscribe". That'll block the entire domain.
Radicalisation starts with people "just asking questions" or "just pointing out an issue with X without having anything against them", that's enough to hook some people that will go way down the rabbit hole.
In the screenshot you see exactly what I'm talking about, "I'm not racist, but I can point out issues with the BLM movement". Alright they just opened the door to people that are a bit more radical to try and find out where the tolerance ends and to others to start looking for answers with a biased premise in mind.
I invite you to watch this video (and the whole series really) that covers all of that:
https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g
I mean, there are indeed issues with the BLM movement. And this "possibly leading to radicalization" is much better than lack of critique.
Say, cultural appropriation is suddenly fine when it's black people doing it. (Talking about Cleopatra in that show, the show itself is not important, just that the "politically correct" approach to it differs.)
Or people who think that BLM is more important than actual ethnic cleansing happening in parts of the planet far away from BLM.
Of course, these issues are inherited from general ignorance and indifference to suffering of others combined with trends of virtue signaling. Same happens in many areas not connected to racism.
...
Nope.
I don't think this is a satisfactory answer.
Anyway, what I said can be shortened to "everybody who is looking sees you as a hypocrite when you are doing this kind of activism which costs nothing".
You were talking to people not even from that instance. You people need to learn how federation works
I've already acknowledged that multiple times.
Your comment is the perfect example of why defederation is even being considered. You're a sad, confused person who is angry at the world and takes it out on other people. One look at your comment history makes that clear.
We're trying to build an alternative to reddit and it's going to be really hard to do that if we have to fucking drag people like you along with us. You seem to enjoy making other people miserable.
If you genuinely think libertarians are equivalent to r/thedonald posters, you have no clue what you're talking about. Which is why defederating based on politics is stupid.
I never said they were equivalent. One of the most popular posts on the server is about creating an index of libertarian/right-leaning instances.
https://exploding-heads.com/post/92733
One of the most prominent users (4 month acount!) is named maga_force.
What term would you use to describe their users?
@imaqtpie "What term would you use to describe their users?"
Nazis, probably.
Comma separation implies a list of traits (users are both r/thedonald users and libertarian) whereas or/and would imply that libertarians and r/thedonald users both exist in the instance
Conservative/MAGA fits the majority of the content a lot better
Lol fair enough, thats true.
I honestly thought libertarian was the more flattering descriptor, but sure we can go with Conservative/MAGA
Yeah, so do they - that's why they try to co-opt the term lol
Ok word. Yeah libertarians usually have some kind of rationale and principles while MAGA people are just walking memes that regurgitate spam.
Honestly most self-described right-libertarians are really differing levels of feudalists. With the uber-feudalists being the “anarcho-capitalists”. Which is the dumbest term ever but that’s not the point.
So I’m always very very suspicious of someone who says they are a libertarian…
I don't necessarily disagree, but its helpful to remember that not everyone is at the same point in their intellectual progression. I tend to assume that libertarians haven't really gotten into the weeds yet, and they could potentially be brought around to a more sophisticated understanding by discussion and reading more. Whereas MAGA I generally have no hope of getting through to them because they don't even pretend to be rational.
Most people who think they are “libertarians” have no clue what they are talking about.
Proudly planting the libertarian flag on top of a few pet peeves.
Then watch them cry foul whenever libertarianism strikes in any of the soft spots they don't want touched, or don't understand through lazy ignorance. An extreme cartoonish (yet sadly real) example being something like "Keep your dirty government hands off my Medicare".
It is as disappointing to see MAGA-types try to co-opt "libertarian" for optics as it is to see the general populace so lacking in critical thinking as to take the bait hook, line, and sinker.
The term had been coopted by feudalists much before that. The term originally referred to anarcho-socialists as opposed to the growing “authoritarian” socialist trend. I put authoritarian in quotes, because that term has also completely lost its meaning.
Anarcho-communists represent.