this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023

75 points (93.1% liked)

The Agora

1598 readers

2 users here now

In the spirit of the Ancient Greek Agora, we invite you to join our vibrant community - a contemporary meeting place for the exchange of ideas, inspired by the practices of old. Just as the Agora served as the heart of public life in Ancient Athens, our platform is designed to be the epicenter of meaningful discussion and thought-provoking dialogue.

Here, you are encouraged to speak your mind, share your insights, and engage in stimulating discussions. This is your opportunity to shape and influence our collective journey, just like the free citizens of Athens who gathered at the Agora to make significant decisions that impacted their society.

You're not alone in your quest for knowledge and understanding. In this community, you'll find support from like-minded individuals who, like you, are eager to explore new perspectives, challenge their preconceptions, and grow intellectually.

Remember, every voice matters and your contribution can make a difference. We believe that through open dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to discovery, we can foster a community that embodies the democratic spirit of the Agora in our modern world.

Community guidelines
New posts should begin with one of the following:

[Question]
[Discussion]
[Poll]

Only moderators may create a [Vote] post.

Voting History & Results

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

[Discussion] Some of the most active instances will eventually silo themselves (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We should do our absolute best to not become a siloed instance. I predict we will start seeing certain instances be almost inaccessible which will lead to their users migrating to more open instances. It's already becoming clear to me that certain instances will lose users over time if they continue actively segregating their instance from others.

Individual bad actors on other instances is not a good enough reason to defederate. If a troll is bothing someone they can be blocked/banned on sh.itjust.works. I don't expect instance creators to ban all trolls, it's not possible.

Defederation should be reserved for severe cases when another instance shows no interest in moderating. The two instances defederated right now are justified: one condones the denial historical events and actively censors opposition, and the other was condoning heinous illegal activies regarding underage individuals. These are two clear examples of where defederation makes sense.

Defederation should only be used as a last resort.

My previous post continues this sentiment from a couple days ago here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/281126

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ive seen a lot of opinions like this, and for me its missing the entire point of the fediverse: instances are free to make their own decisions.

If you think defederating for anything other than the most extreme reasons is bad, thats fine. There are instances like that

And if people are happy with more defederation for any reason, those instances exist

Any meta-discussion about how widely defederation should be used across ALL instances is inherently kinda dumb

And as an aside: people are really overreacting to beehaw temporarily defederating from two big instances to deal with an unprecedented rise in users and activity. Its not a big deal.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are instances like that

Likewise, there are instance that already have the likes of exploding-heads defederated. This is a discussion on how defederation should be used. And I for one agree with OP, only use defederation when absolutely necessary.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

There's a difference between instances with some bad users, or too many users to moderate properly with existing tools, and there are instances based on premises that just need to be isolated and die. If an instance is run and moderated by genocide deniers, that's drastically different than one with some trolls swimming in a sea of normal people. I'm not quite sure how out there exploding heads is, but burggit and lemmygrad are pretty obvious cases of illegal/reprehensible servers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Any meta-discussion about how widely defederation should be used across ALL instances is inherently kinda dumb

Unfortunately, this is true. We'll never convince everyone in the Fediverse to see things our way, nor vice versa. And we shouldn't. So, some instances will pick and choose, while others will stay wide open to federation.

The other side of this coin, though, is when an instance gets large enough to be able to host differing views. At that point, federation or defederation can't simply be what I want, or what the loudest voice wants, but what everyone can live with.

What I see eventually happening, is there will be several large instances with large user bases. These will federate with almost everyone. Then you'll have smaller niche instances, for those looking to fine-tune their experience.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I see the Fediverse as a network that can subsume all existing social media networks. In order for that to work we have to fight to make sure the network is as cohesive as possible. This includes places that contain content or opinions that we won't agree with.

I think de-federation should be very limited and mostly a low level administrative function.

Fighting spam is a good example or what I mean. Since anybody can make an instance and have it spew spam users/comments into the greater community. The ability to unlink from these instances is a vital tool for making the network run smoothly.

Illegal things like CSAM or sites that engage in the orchestration of violence, doxing or online harassment are, to me, a red line for content that cannot exist on the network. Too many locations, where instances are hosted, have laws against these things and allowing federation of instances with this type of content can leave the instance owners open to legal issues. Because of that, they cannot be federated with.

The sticky part, and where people argue the most, is when it comes to viewpoints that they consider extreme. To take a US viewpoint (as I'm a US user) the current culture war issues in the US create a flashpoint where essentially every side is convinced that they're correct and that the other side is literally evil and that should justify not federating with them.

I don't think it takes much investigative work to see that I'm more on the left end of the spectrum. On top of that, I live in a rural area and so I'm constantly having to interact with people on the right who have opinions that I find... extreme. The thing that I've found is that if you can engage with them as a person, have some empathy and understand their viewpoints it usually isn't hard to dissuade them of their more extremist notions. Most people are simply a product of the media that they consume, they're not evil they're just repeating things they heard and things that made them feel outraged or afraid.

Being able to provide that opposing viewpoint and to engage with people who seem otherwise unreachable is incredibly important to moderating the worst viewpoints. The idea of de-federating instances is the antithesis of this idea. All that is doing is walling them into a bubble where they only ever hear opinions that agree with them and nothing builds extremism like never being told that you're wrong and never having to defend your ideas. I think it is better for the health of all of society to keep the lines of communication open to instances that maintain the bare minimum of standards for their content.

I know that not everyone agrees with this idea and I certainly understand the draw and comfort of being able to just put them out of your mind but I also think that the right things to do isn't always the most comfortable thing to do.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I understand where you're coming from, I really do.

But deplatform Nazis and fascists. Always and everywhere. They don't operate on the same good faith that you give them, they take every opportunity to spread hate under the cover of "free speech", and if they know they can keep getting away with it, they will.

There can be spaces to deradicalize of course, but that's not the same as giving someone free reign to spout hate.

See also: the paradox of tolerance

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The Paradox of Tolerance actually favours Bit's argument.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

NOT MY OPINION:

Deplatform LGBTQ always and everywhere. They don’t operate on the same good faith that you give them, they take every opportunity to spread hate under the cover of “free speech”, and if they know they can keep getting away with it, they will.

There can be spaces to rehabilitate them of course, but that’s not the same as giving someone free reign to spout hate against traditional family values.

END

The above is something that would be totally uncontroversial in my country if anyone said it on national TV. In fact, they might be seen as being quite soft on LGBT people since they weren't calling for total eradication of LGBT folk. Interesting you mention paradox of tolerance, the same is used to justify why people should outright hate LGBT folk and never tolerate them (in my country at least).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Then you don't understand the paradox of tolerance. Sure, you can make up attributes to a group to justify discriminating against them but in that case, any rules or reason is already a waste of time since you've already decided discrimination is what is right, the explanation for why is just an afterthought.

However, being LGBT is not an opinion, it's not an ideology, there's no cohesive set of values that they share. Most hopefully agree with equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity but there are LGBT grifters on the right in the US as well. That's why you can't compare it to the alt-right and/or nazism that are only political viewpoints and very distinctly include discrimination. That last part is very important as it's a big difference-maker when comparing them to other political ideologies that aren't based on discrimination.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, people should never use a paradox to argue their point. I guarantee you that most people who use it haven't actually read it.

[–] FoxAndKitten 1 points 1 year ago

The paradox of tolerance is such a ridiculous notion to me. It's like someone responded to a bad faith argument and the idea caught fire.

There's no paradox. Tolerance doesn't mean you tolerate people punching you (or a bystander) in the face, it means you tolerate who they are - not what they do.

I'm a Jew, and if I run into an old school, final solution Nazi I'm going to think "wow, what a stupid piece of shit excuse for a human being". As a person, I'm going to judge them for being dumb and having terrible moral character, but I'm going to tolerate them.

Now, if I catch them holding a rally, painting swastikas, or just overhear them advocating for the theoretical extermination of my bloodlines, I'm going to react accordingly. That's not about who they are, that's about what they're doing - they can believe whatever they want in their heart of hearts, but the moment they try to spread that shit it's an act of violence, and it demands an appropriate response.

If they spread their nonsense in some private corner of the Internet, you fight back with words. You don't virtually chase them into an echo chamber beyond your reach or into isolation - just because you're on the right side doesn't make your actions right.

By attacking them for who they are (an idiot susceptible to dangerous ideology), you feed their delusions and cut off opportunities for a better take to be hammered into them.

Deplatforming them is a serious thing. When it's just words, correct them, maybe mock them. Deplatforming is what you do only when they organize - you break that shit up, because it transitions from a shitty take to a group that is making increasingly credible threats. And when they start to actually act, you do what you have to do so they fear showing their colors.

You have to police actions - never identity. First you remove the ability to do harm, then you pull them back from the fringes and let them rejoin society (so long as they can abide social norms).

And in doing that, there's no conflict. The paradox only appears when you start to overreach, and at that end lies a different flavor of fascism - theirs is prejudice, on ours is ideological. Regardless, it's still fascism - fascism is all about going after whoever "doesn't belong", regardless of criteria

Tolerance means everyone belongs, it's a nice clear line that has no contradictions - everyone belongs, but you still police actions (including words) appropriately

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

So you want to create echo-chambers and live in your filter bubble? Fine but don't force that onto others.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is what I always try to preach. The internet if today has bred some crazy right wingers. And it's because of the bad algorithms in the likes of Facebook that end up causing echo chambers that further radicalise the impressionable. We should strive to fight for their right to not be defederated so they don't end up in an echo chamber

We may never see them again, but people in their real life will, and being in an echo chamber will make them worse. We need them to be able to see the other side and they need to be challenged. Challenged in a meaningful manner though and not just getting angry at them and calling them names. Discussions need to happen, of all kinds. Even if implicitly via different posts popping up and not just with direct comments and messages if you know what I mean.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've had experiences interacting with homophobes in my own life (I'm gay), and by and large they don't change their position and only make me feel horrible after the interaction. Those who are on the fence I could see the avenue for nuance, but there shouldn't be spaces to encourage fence sitters to be more homophobic

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

If those fence sitters have ended up registered on the instance to become defederated then defederation is doing just that. Encouraging them to become more homophobic.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd argue that Lemmygrad shouldn't be defederated, because, while Lemmygrad itself does not allow for proper discussion, other instances do and Lemmygrad users could be confronted on those instances. 'Could', because due to the defederation, Lemmygrad user comments won't show for users of this instance.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lemmygrad is something else, on a level with exploding heads. I even try to avoid lemmy.ml, because the devs are tankies, too... but at least there are normal users there, too. The lemmygrad ban is absolutely fine.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been working on a nonbiased worldnews. lemmy.ml having the most popular worldnews with their clear bias is worrying.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

all news has bias and the fact that you feel you can create a non-biased world news on your own just shows how unqualified you are. To even get close you'd need multiple people with different biases.

You are not some perfect judge of neutrality. Far from.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I plan on utilising mediabiasfactcheck and have it as a disclaimer for every newly created thread, listing the bias and factual reporting on whatever outlet is posted.

For breaking news, only reputable sources with a neutral bias and high factual reporting will be allowed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thats fine but your bias will be tested with what you allow to stay up. Will you allow news from sources rated as extreme - will it depend on if its extreme left or extreme right? Will you allow reposts of stories that spark outrage in the cases it sparks outrage you like, but take down stories that spark outrage you dont like? Will you even notice if you're moderating and locking threads that spark your political adversaries outrage, but participating in threads that spark your political allies outrage?

If you're serious about trying to be neutral I suggest you look for someone somewhat ideologically opposed to you to create that balance in the space.

The nice thing about lemmy is that whatever happens, the world news instance that manages to exorcise obvious bs and propaganda the best will hopefully flourish.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Will you allow news from sources rated as extreme - will it depend on if its extreme left or extreme right?

Anything between left-right is fine.

During breaking news, it'll only be centre. No twitter threads or anonymous sources. Only trusted, reliable and reputable news.

Will you allow reposts of stories that spark outrage in the cases it sparks outrage you like, but take down stories that spark outrage you dont like?

I probably won't deal with reposts so long as it's within the current month. If the community becomes active, then I won't allow reposts from old headlines. I'm pretty neutral with any article so long as it's true and fair.

Will you even notice if you’re moderating and locking threads that spark your political adversaries outrage, but participating in threads that spark your political allies outrage?

I won't lock threads unless I become unavailable.

If you’re serious about trying to be neutral I suggest you look for someone somewhat ideologically opposed to you to create that balance in the space.

I'm neutral myself, so I don't really know what the opposition of that is.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

again, you're not neutral yourself. You're just failing to identify your own biases.

Im pretty sure you were the guy right wing trolling in fact, because I viewed your history when you put yourself up for agora mod. but you seem to have a new account or have cleared some of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

uh no? I didn't make a new account or clear my history. All my comments are still in the Mod Application thread.

as for bias, are you asking me for my political opinions? I'm quite varied. c:

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

are you under the impression that political opinions don't constitute bias? Or maybe you think political opinions don't affect how we view news? I'd disagree with both statements

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah news is biased as it is because there are more events to report than there is time to report them. So a choice must be made on what to report. However, that choice is where the bias could end. The choice of what to report doesn't have include political bias in its conditions.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

Alrighty! What's your opinion? /c/worldnews

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

What the hell? I thought this was better than reddit. The fact that all shit from reddit transfered to some instances just makes me sad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

and Lemmygrad users could be confronted on those instances

Ah yes the good old "debate me" approach, but reversed.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

True. Although, I've seen even the most aggressively defederated instances of mastodon be very active long-term and even grow. (poa.st may be one of the most defederated instances for example, and 1. there's still a lot of instances federated to them and 2. they still have a very active userbase.)

Quick note about this:

the other was condoning heinous illegal activies regarding underage individuals

As far as I know, they don't actually condone anything regarding "individuals" per se. Afaik Burggit's underage content is limited to hentai (japanese-style drawings) specifically. Which is not to say it is not illegal, because in Canada, it is illegal and categorized as child pornography.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

underage content is limited to hentai

In my opinion I don't see that as a limit, hentai can be even more fine tuned to give satisfaction to those who desire it. I don't want to see it on any platform that I take part in even including www.lemmynsfw.com which has made it explicitly clear that they will not accept anything that even resembles such a thing. ANYTHING related to underage content within that context should be forbidden, it benefits no one and is demonstrably harmful.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my opinion I don’t see that as a limit,

Do you mean that you have seen that they do not limit themselves to hentai, and do in fact condone activities beyond that?

www.lemmynsfw.com which has made it explicitly clear that they will not accept anything that even resembles such a thing

True, I read that the general consensus from people in the instance poll is to not allow it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I mean that I don't see hentai as a limit, nothing about hentai is "limiting". It's still not welcome. I'm glad lemmynsfw made that decision early on to be strict forbidding anything that even slightly resembles that content.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s just as bad as allowing it in any other format, possibly even worse.

I have moderated very active open chatrooms in the past and lemme tell ya, the "real stuff" is way worse. For the sake of your (and everyone else reading this thread's) sanity, I won't go into too much detail about what kids endure. But when it comes to the question of whether a sexualized drawing of a kid is worse than a community-funded video of the abuse of a kid... I'm sure you probably didn't think much about what you said lol.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where did I compare such a thing?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, I said that it is "limited to hentai" in the sense that there is no real-life underage pornography. There's no pics & vids of kids basically. And you said that you think that it's not "limited", because hentai is way worse than other types of such content, which made me think you were talking about hentai being worse than child pornography, to which I replied as I did.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said no such thing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok then why did you say it's not "limited to" then.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here is my full comment again for you to read:

In my opinion I don’t see that as a limit, hentai can be even more fine tuned to give satisfaction to those who desire it. I don’t want to see it on any platform that I take part in even including www.lemmynsfw.com which has made it explicitly clear that they will not accept anything that even resembles such a thing. ANYTHING related to underage content within that context should be forbidden, it benefits no one and is demonstrably harmful.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

K, so, I'm not a native English speaker, maybe that's the problem cuz I have no idea where I am misreading.

You say that they are not "limited" to underage hentai (implying that they are doing even worse things than underage hentai), and that's because hentai can be customized to their taste (no idea how this is relevant), that lemmynsfw won't accept underage hentai, and you don't want anything related to underage nsfw-ness.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a native speaker and I interpreted their comment the same way if that counts for anything.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Thx lol, makes me feel a little reassured about my linguistic abilities 🙂

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

To claim something is "demonstrably harmful" you actually have to demonstrate harm, not just cry about people liking fiction you don't.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Damn right. Defederation could destroy the Fediverse.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I agree. We shouldn't be allergic to bad takes or even grifters (though individually I want the power to block them).

If some instances are just private, that's fine. But I genuinely fear joining an instance only to have it defederate later.

I want everybody in my feed!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I actually don't think that defederation is always bad, particularly with types of content that serve very different purposes, e.g. I could see one network of federated porn instances and one separate network of more general content work quite well, at least until tagging and filtering of content becomes a lot more sophisticated than it is now.

load more comments