this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
131 points (88.8% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7584 readers
1 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Some people are so fragile that the MERE EXISTENCE of ideas they don't agree with are an existential threat, whereas I am proud to have friends and neighbors that we do NOT always agree. Ironically, having people around with different thoughts and ideas is actual diversity, which is the opposite of these 'curated safe spaces' that these overly ban-friendly instances seem to crave.
It's not a difference of opinion, it's spewing of hate and misinformation. By the time you address one thing, they've spewed another ten. So you stop and then it goes unchecked. I suggest you watch the "innuendo studios" channel on YouTube.
But de-federating ENSURES it goes unchecked....
Only in that little sub, and doesn't spread to the rest of the fed. Or shut it down like it was in this case.
But you're missing 2 points:
It's not merely a difference of opinion, which many people welcome. It's the spewing of hatred and misinformation.
There's no countering it because of the asymmetry of bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law It goes on and on and on, just flooding everything.
It's genuinely reassuring to see people with such an outlook on things. There's nothing worse than absolutists putting everything in the same bag.
I don't know if you mean that as sarcasm. But we're talking about The Donald. That's one bag, or even one aspect of it. Not everything on the spectrum.
There was no sarcasm on my end. To reformulate: it's reassuring to see someone saying that we shouldn't consider the spewing of hatred and disinformation as valid, thought provoking, and nurturing opinions.
So block them and move on. Or if you disagree with them that badly, push to have that instance/community added to a public blocklist/filter. Defederation, besides being an overly authoritarian solution, damages the network in a way that can and will make Lemmy into a worse place for its users.
As instances start to defederate, it will matter more and more which instance a user signs up to. This will push users towards larger instances. As instances get larger, they will become less and less reliant on 3rd party instances for content, those instance admins will be incentivized to defederate from them, as they will a) not have as much control over those instances, and b) start to view them as competitors rather than collaborators.
The beauty of Lemmy and federation generally, is that information appears centralized to it's users, despite being decentralized in reality.
The more defederation is used, the more centralized Lemmy becomes, whilest giving a more fractured, confusing, and disorganized experience to its users.
Defederation will kill Lemmy. It needs to removed from the protocol before it becomes too widely abused.
I see Lemmy going down in one of two ways:
In fighting and fragmentation with overzealous use of defederation leading to walled gardens, and a terrible user experience.
Or
A major player like google or microsoft sees the potential in Lemmy. Starts their own highly funded instance that is full of useful features and a wonderful smooth UX. (That is all proprietary and only usable on their instance, naturally) Then when the majority of users are on their instance, defederate from everywhere else. (If you don't think this can happen, just look at what google did to xmpp).
My own personal blocking does not solve the problem.
I think you're on a slippery slope argument, taking it from 1 to 100 awfully quick.