/kbin meta

All the things you mentioned are in the roadmap. However, we can either do it quickly and potentially encounter issues in a few weeks or months, or take a bit more time for a more thorough approach. I've decided to move away from playful prototyping. From now on, every change will be tested before it's approved for kbin.social - it's no longer just my code (https://lab2.kbin.pub/). I'd like to close this thread for you... but can we just agree not to respond in it anymore? ;p

kbin.social administration controls only what is published on kbin.social, and what content from elsewhere kbin.social users can see. An user banned from kbin.social can make another account, on another site and start recreate there his banned community. kbin.social will be able to ban this remote user and remote community, but this restricts only what kbin.social users can see.

Exactly the same for another /kbin or lemmy site - just replace the domain name accordingly.

@KTVX94

While I kind of agree with you in being concerned about who gets to control what we see and don't see and the censorship aspect, there is also "the paradox of tolerance" to be considered and maybe in that light it is correct to not tolerate that subs intolerance.

Regarding the Paradox of Tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Wouldn't that go against the decentralized nature of the site?

No, it's exactly the opposite. The entire point of a decentralized federation is that while yes, the admin is in complete control of what content is allowed on his or her own instance, users who don't like what the admin is doing can just spin up their own new instances.

Ernest can ban this type of content if he likes. Others can take the kbin software and make a new instance where it's welcome. Ernest can choose not to federate with that instance if they continue to push content that's against his rules, but Ernest doesn't have the power to dictate the direction for hundreds of millions of users' experience like a certain centralized site's mad CEO or admin board does.

What would be against the nature of ActivityPub is if Ernest built something into the software to prevent it being used for types of content he doesn't like, even on other instances.

The problem is that by that point it will have grown beyond manageability. You know the "Nazi bar" saying.

There's a bunch of people (who are Nazis) and they seem cool, quiet, well spoken, just having a drink. And they bring their friends and those guys are cool too. Then those guys bring their friends and those guys are less cool and now normal people don't drink at the bar anymore and you look around and it's a Nazi bar and you can't make them leave or they'll start causing "problems". So. I'm all for just using the brutal hammer of censorship.

It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was.

#1 rule on the internet: don't feed the trolls. Downvote them, block them, move on. They're not here to engage in good faith.

and not intervene unless it grows beyond manageability.

I'd rather nip it in the bud. You're just letting things fester.