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"
As far as I am concerned there is nothing to be lost by defederating with an instance whose most active communities are devoted to transphobia and covid conspiracy shit. It's not a matter of both sides having value they bring to the table. They are wrong, and we have nothing to gain from a federations with them.
I've already watched at least two people get banned for sharing a story that doesn't jive with the popular opinion on some instances.
I don't want another echochamber.
I've been banned because I used the British Cigarette word about my experience of homophobia. Truly hilarious.
I'm not British, but when camping my friends use the original meaning of the word "faggot".
Hey, the fire's about to die, bring us another faggot.
They say the exact same about you.
But unlike you, they are willing to engage, though nonsensically. Maybe you should try finding some common ground, or convince them, or just make fun of them if they peep their heads out of their echo-chambers, which they most certainly will not. I've been active and haven't seen a single user from exploding-heads outside of their instance.
There are enough echo-chamber verses as it is, we don't need sh.it to become yet another.
There is a very big difference between being willing to engage with those whose viewpoints are different to yours and supporting a hateful, bigoted rhetoric.
No one is encouraging sh.itjust.works to become an echo chamber because so one is suggesting viewpoints to be the basis of the instance. Only being against bigotry, which is already in the sh.it terms.
I agree.
But do you want them to be blocked? Or kept a close eye on?
Did you look at the image OP provided of the response from the "second in command" of EH?
He opens with stating that he will only ban in those certain cases (ok, reasonable to provide expectations for when you will ban), but when you read the cases they are actually situations for which he is legally required as the admin to report to law enforcement authorities, and he doesn't indicate that he will do that, just ban. So, are we to believe he will actually handle those properly?
What about if he feels a post isn't quite violent enough to be banned, or if the plans to commit a crime weren't quite specific enough to be considered ban-worthy? What if something that is "anti-jew" (to use his word) he considers to just be fact? What's "over-the-top" racism to him?
I did go over to the instance to get some first hand knowledge, and from the little bit if scrolling I did, it's a mixed bag. But this admission from the "second in command" looks like it's giving the green light to every one.
So we're holding him responsible for things that haven't even happened yet? That doesn't seem fair.
You know you can just ask him all of these things, right? If you want, I can even ping him so he can answer you within this very thread, something that will not be possible if they got blocked.
Which is why the questions were raised. I am one of the ones that pointed out to you that we are not discouraging engaging in open discussion. I am also not in the instance bring discussed at this moment - as you pointed out on multiple occasions, despite the benefits to this discussion including all instances as I have pointed out multiple times. However, these are also questions I feel you should ponder, as well as others in this thread, which might inspire other questions or thoughts. That's the point of posting a comment on a forum.
true that