Please Consider Defederating from rammy.site
Please Consider Defederating from rammy.site
Dear Admins of the Lemmy.world instance I am asking that you please consider defederating from the rammy.site instance as soon as possible as the admin is no where to be found and it has been taken over by right wing posters posting hateful messages. There are also other people posting large amounts of spam and creating empty communities. What was once a small hobby run general purpose instance has been turned over and made into a festering right wing hate filled breeding ground by the people from exploding-heads. The only recoarse left it seems is to defederate to prevent them from spreading hate to other instances.
PS. I already sent this message to multiple admins here, sorry about that I just felt it was urgent to make sure the message was sent before these people cause more damage.
You're viewing a single thread.
You actually don't need to campaign to defederate every instance that offends you. Lemmy provides the ability to report posts and block posts, users, and instances. I get that there are a lot of shitheads, assholes, and idiots on the Internet... Defederating might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in many cases. Hell, if you listened to everyone shouting about the assholes you shouldn't support no one would be on Lemmy at all. Also, small I hobby instances are run by people with lives. Perhaps the admin will have time in the near future to clean up what's been reported. Or maybe it really is abandoned. We just don't know.
When someone starts campaigning to defederate an instance it immediately starts my senses tingling because I think I'm getting a version of the story... and it's doubtful I'll hear the other side. It offends the same part of as people complaining about downvotes did on Reddit. Take advice from a cartoon dog. "It's not the done thing." Or it shouldn't be, at least.
Had this post just been letting people know what you observed about the instance I would be more moved to investigate and perhaps report posts and block the instance. I might still if I see hateful speech in All... but the implication that their hate will fester, breed, and spread if they aren't immediately defederated is using the same tactics that right wing populists are... by dehumanizing people and playing on other people's fear. It is just as wrong for you as it is for them to do it.
It astounds me that people literally don't get how federation works. The whole fucking point of federation is that we can defederate from instances that have garbage in them.
This isn't censorship.
People are free to go be human garbage in their own instance, and I am glad that we can throw out the trash.
They’re allowed to freely say whatever they want on their instance, but we don’t have to listen. Y’all view defederation like I’m fucking stabbing Caesar in the back again.
Defederation is not censorship. It is refusing to listen to or platform things that you don't agree with i.e. bigots or nazis. Lemmy.world has defederated exploding heads so it stands to reason that they wouldn't want to listen to the same assholes spewing the same crap on rammy.site
Dude, defederation is a form of censorship, and there’s nothing wrong with censoring false and hateful views.
It literally isn't censorship.
You can call it deplatforming if you need to call it something.
Dictionary says censorship is:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Is deplatforming not suppression? Are we not talking about something that we find unacceptable?
It's censorship, and that's ok, because it's the only real tool we have to fight the spread of bigoted lies, because the truth doesn't work on the stupid and disingenuous.
Except it's literally not the suppression or prohibition of anything.
It's not censorship if you don't let people into your house. It's not censorship if you don't let people paint on your walls.
This isn't the government. This isn't the prevention or suppression or public speech. They can (and do) post that shit. You are free to go read it.
Almost no media platform is required to host or publish any content they don't want to. What do you not understand about this?
It's not censorship if you don't let people into your house. It's not censorship if you don't let people paint on your walls.
I gave a dictionary definition of censorship and you're trying to make analogies to trespassing and vandalism. Just use the definition.
This isn't the government.
Censorship isn't exclusive to governments. Private entities and public corporations can perform acts of internal censorship or even self censor in external communications.
This isn't the prevention or suppression or public speech. They can (and do) post that shit. You are free to go read it.
There are countries that ban pornography, however someone outside the country is still free to see said pornography. Does the suppression of pornography in that country cease to be censorship simply because some people are still free to see it?
Almost no media platform is required to host or publish any content they don't want to. What do you not understand about this?
Yep, and that's why there are many corporations that self censor according to their own sensibilities. And that what this whole thread is about, the question of whether to censor rammy.site by suppressing their content via defederation.
There's nothing confusing about this unless you have mixed feelings about the word censorship itself but still support the suppression of speech you don't like(and to reiterate, i find the content on rammy.site bigoted and high objectionable, and want it censored)
You can continue to incorrectly call this censorship if you want, but you are going to continue to be wrong.
It's obvious that you have difficulty with disambiguating the appropriate levels of abstraction for use with the words based on your examples. At this point, it's either intentional rhetoric designed to try and confuse others or pride and ignorance. I am starting to lean towards bad actor.
I'm having difficulty yes.
The fediverse is akin to a network, instances join this network and relay content to and from each other.
The internet is a network, networks upon networks, and nodes in the network relay content to and from each other.
If a country decides to block objectionable content on the internet, the news article covering this will use the term censorship. Whether it's porn, anti-religious content, or inconvenient history, they will call cutting off that part of the internet, whether via filtering or total disconnection, censorship. Even though this falls in your example of "you don’t let people into your house", because those countries aren't letting certain packets into their borders, it is still commonly referred to as censorship.
So, if an instance on the fediverse decides to opt out of relaying objectionable content, thus suppressing that content, how does it not meet the criteria for censorship if defederation is analogous to countries performing censorship via blocking internet content?
Except an instance isn't a country. It isn't a government. This instance isn't operated by or for a government. Most instances are owned and operated by a single individual or a small group of people.
If you owned a coffee shop, and you banned someone for standing in a booth screaming racial slurs, that's not censorship. It is irrelevant how that person got to the coffee shop. It isn't even censorship for Starbucks to ban someone from all of their stores.
To make the analogy more complete. Suppose you had two entrances to your shop. Those entrances adjourn to neighboring restaurants/shops. Suppose one of your neighbors screams racial slurs in their own shop. You can't stop them except by asking nicely. Suppose they don't stop. They attract a bunch of people like themselves who scream racial slurs all day. Now, you could ban the people who come in to your shop screaming slurs through that entrance one by one sure... Or you could shut that entrance and lock it. Shutting the door isn't censorship.
You haven't made it illegal for them to scram racial slurs. You haven't imposed on their rights to freely operate their business as they wish. But you not keeping that entrance open isn't censorship.
It would be censorship if the government made it illegal to scream racial slurs. It would be censorship if you locked them out of and prevented them from using something they owned themselves... (It's not censorship for a landlord to kick a tenant out of a building they own for spray painting hate speech on the building for example).
Have we not established that censorship isn't something solely done at the government level? I was using government censorship as an example, but censorship can be performed by companies, groups of people, and individuals.
Also, why are you not addressing the dictionary definition of censorship? Why are you not addressing my example? Why are you ignoring my comparison of a network to a network, and instead trying to compare a network to a shop, apartment, or restaurant?
It's really easy to pretend this isn't censorship is you ignore the literal dictionary definition of the word and direct analogies(a federation list is more akin to a peering list than it is to a restaurant...), and instead supply a convoluted abstract example of your own.
I believe I'm satisfied that the issue at hand is cognitive dissonance on your part, wherein you hold censorship as morally objectionable, but are conflicted because in this instance censorship is a tool you wish(rightly) to be wielded.
Maan, you're getting wrongly downvoted to hell, and I just wanted to stop, and give you some admiration, and thanks for being able to apply critical thought, and impartiality.
There's so much cognitive dissonance in these threads.
You've gotten downvoted, and you'll probably get some more downvotes. But you you took the time to write a thoughtful post, and you made a good point.
But ultimately I feel your point is wrong. Defederating from such an instance isn't the equivalent of dehumanizing people you disagree with. Rather, it's limiting the (potential) scope of harm people with bad intentions can cause.
I get you'd like to see "both sides" or have a fuller picture, but there is enough evidence already that there really isn't any possible "good" reason for their speech, and we should do what we can to limit its reach.
What evidence? Who is them?
Don't JAQ off in public
Karl Popper entered the chat.
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
This is and always has been semantic bullshit.
There is no fucking paradox of intolerance.
Because you do not "tolerate" the violence that intolerance leads to, you ALLOW it.
Shooting a fucking Nazi in the face isn't intolerance. It's basic preventative maintenance for democracy.
So you'd rather shoot a Nazi than a trans person? What's wrong with you?
Personally I'm more concerned about the Spiral of Silence.
The spiral of silence theory, proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in the 1970s, explains how public opinion is formed and how individuals may withhold expressing their views if they perceive them to be in the minority. This theory is often applied to political and social contexts, including the rise of ideologies like fascism.
In the context of fascism or any other controversial ideology, the spiral of silence suggests that when people believe their opinions are not widely supported, they tend to remain silent and refrain from expressing their views publicly. This silence, in turn, can create an illusion that the majority supports the prevailing ideology, even if it might not be the case. As a result, individuals who disagree with the ideology might feel isolated and discouraged from speaking out, contributing to the seeming growth and acceptance of the ideology.
I don't think people tolerate intolerance so much as they're scared to speak out.
People can block users and communities. We have the tools, so use them.
Amin!
It's always refreshing to read an intelligent and well thought out response. The world needs more nuance!
You mean "a response I agree with."
And by "nuance" you mean "PEOPLE THAT USE THE N WORD REGULARLY!"
I mean I guess I do agree with the sentiment that defederating shouldn't be the default response to finding offensive content on another instance.
If you check the highest scoring comment on this post you'll see it's also me, because I also find the content on that instance highly offensive. I'm just wary because Lemmy still feels very new, and the our behaviours now might set a precedent for the future, and I don't want every disagreement to end up with another instance defederated.
And no I don't use the N word regularly, I'm not even from the US