please defederate from exploding-heads.com and rammy.site
please defederate from exploding-heads.com and rammy.site
(not sure if this is the right community, sorry)
Hi, someone posted this on another server. I'd like to request we defederate with rammy.site and exploding-heads.com as well. I scrolled through some of their posts and comments and it's full of ridiculous anti-left propaganda, for example a post where some liberal Florida family fleeing the state when some child protection laws got passed, implying liberals abuse children and won't live in a state that doesn't allow them to. Just take a look for yourself.
" Admins of Lemmy.ml please consider defederating from rammy.site it has been taken over by right wing malicious actors from exploding-heads.com and the admin is nowhere to be found.
It is imperative that you take action as soon as possible the users on rammy are using the site to spread their messages to a further audience, we must nip this in the bud. If you don't believe me check the instance for yourself, you'll see it dominated with bigoted right wing posts and spam communities."
Edit: So many commenters think this is about political opinions or disagreement. It's not. If I said "Mixing bleach and ammonia is good for you" I bet some of you would call that a political disagreement.
You're viewing a single thread.
If I am reading the situation wrong, I apologize.
The reason that I am not a member at beehaw was because they were overly wrapped up in concerns such as this one. I'm here for enjoyable chats with people, not to take sides in the latest macro-politics or causes or whatever lately is stirring the pot or making the winds blow. These things are fine and some people are interested in them, but I'm turned off by the idea of an instance that is particularly identified one way or another when I am not concerned with any of that.
What I'm looking for are kind souls that share an interest in technology and an instance that was widely federated so that a wide variety of my interest groups (music, weightloss, networking, ancient Stoicism) are available. That's why I joined here. SDF has been around a long time and many who have enjoyed its offerings have held many different opinions and yet shared this resource peacefully.
I'm particularly turned off by people that want a silo with only the right causes, only the right thinking, only the right speech.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have management and protection of against those that are unkindly trolling or actively trying to do technical damage. Ban those actually doing evil. But if people of good cheer share different views kindky as neighbors and friends, I have no problem with that and don't want to see that roped off.
Remember the two rules of FidoNet? "Don't be excessively annoying. Don't be easily annoyed." That's all I'm saying.
ancient Stoicism
Is there modern stoicism? And if so, how is it different?
There is the English dictionary definition of stoic and stoicism with a small s character. There is also an ancient philosophy of Stoicism both ongoing and with a recent revival currently ongoing.
You're reading the situation wrong. Go to those instances and read what's there, it's not about free speech, it's active disinformation campaigns and propaganda. I would feel the same if it was extreme leftist propaganda. It's not about creating an echo chamber. I respect the right to free speech, but that isn't the same as allowing people a platform to systematically organize hate using falsified information. This is a situation where silence is complicity. Their instance continues to exist without us, their free speech continues, but by remaining federated we are giving them a platform.
As usual, I have typed 500 words when 50 will do, and for that I apologize.
Go to those instances and read what’s there
No, I do not care to and why would you do that? You already have determined it's not right for you. Any alleged content problem that you have to see by going there would, if true, be a problem there. Does that make it a problem here? If I have to take extraordinary steps here to see it here, isn't that on me? Isn't the apparatus doing what it is supposed to be doing if I seek out a thing and find it?
The ultimate measure of freedom is the freedom to abstain. (Nobody is forcibly opting us in to reading their content.)
I'm just a regular user of SDF so these things aren't up to me, but I would think that it would take more than "because it exists." Defederation and Federation shouldn't be used to signal alignment and nonalignment of expression, but for reasons of managing the network itself. A telephone company provides service to everyone and doesn't care what you do with your phone. But, if someone is using it in a way that disrupts the network itself or others' ability to use the network, the telephone company should act to protect the overall integrity of the network. Even then it wouldn't silence the speech because of the speech, but because of the network.
Their instance continues to exist without us, their free speech continues, but by remaining federated we are giving them a platform.
Look, it's one thing to be put off by someone going out of their way to affront you. It's another to feel affronted after going out of your way to find if there is something objectionable anywhere. By that logic, since you have found something then defederation alone should not be enough, as "we are giving them a platform" still, because other people might visit there directly instead of through federation. Therefore, due to that situation, they should not have an DNS entry so you work on their Registrar to "deplatform" them. Then, because someone can connect using an IP address, their ISP should disconnect their service or else they're providing their ISP as a platform. But as they can get another ISP in this day of mobile connectivity, you could chase down their power company, yes, because their power company is a platform -- as is their landlord -- as is their employer. And so on.
I remain unconvinced.
You could write 5000 words and I doubt they would change their views. Still I certainly enjoyed reading your words. Best regards.
Edit: I somehow failed to copy and paste
>No, I do not care to and why would I?No, I do not care to and why would you do that?
Let's not be like Reddit and comment essays without reading the article. That's why. You don't even know what you're arguing for if you don't look at it.
If I have to take extraordinary steps here to see it here, isn't that on me? Isn't the apparatus doing what it is supposed to be doing if I seek out a thing and find it?
It's been all over my all feed personally, maybe you just don't pay attention to where content is coming from?
going out of your way to find if there is something objectionable anywhere
See above
because other people might visit there directly instead of through federation
See above
Therefore, due to that situation, they should not have an DNS entry so you work on their Registrar to "deplatform" them.
No, I believe the internet is the utility. Unless actual crimes are being committed, they can have their websites. The key difference here is lemmy.sdf.org is relaying the posts from its own server, and therefore participating in spreading harmful disinformation. It's not like a telephone company that lets anyone call, it's like a newspaper that published anyone's articles, or a bulletin board at the library that doesn't moderate what's there.
No, I do not care to and why would I?
If you are going to quote me, quote me. Do not edit my quotes.
Let’s not be like Reddit and comment essays without reading the article. That’s why. You don’t even know what you’re arguing for if you don’t look at it.
Your article is the article. Your story is you read something somewhere about these sites, not from the sites. You passed it along, later checking and finding that some of the first facts were wrong (which is fine, that happens), but that you still think there were problems here. Perhaps, even bigger problems here.
I don't need to visit any other sites to hold the principle that federation or defederation is about network management, not the views or viewpoints of the content. Not whether the content is right or wrong or factual or not, but whether it impacts the federation itself.
If I was in charge of network or systems management here, my main concern with all of this would be that rammy.site is reportedly without any moderation/administration. But I'm just a user here, and it seems that you are too. You've said your bit, I've said mine, and we both been cordial about it.
You should keep talking about this if you remain interested in it, but I'm moving on. I just wanted to voice my view that the reason I joined this instance was because it was widely federated and not involved in what was going on at beehaw.
I literally don't know how the quote got messed up, I copied and pasted 🤷 I have no idea what's going on at beehaw. lemmy.ml defederated from rammy.site
I have no idea what’s going on at beehaw.
Specifically answering this thought...
Beehaw is the "Aspiring to be(e) a safe, friendly and diverse place." More information is available on their site at https://beehaw.org/ but below is a summary as far as I know it.
Quoting from their main page on the right side...
We’re a collective of individuals upset with the way social media has been traditionally governed. A severe lack of moderation has led to major platforms like Facebook to turn into political machinery focused on disinformation campaigns as a way to make profit off of users.
That policy is reflected on how that instance operates. They are known to be an instance that has defederated with a very large amount of other instances due to policies that those instances have as well as other things such as allowing anyone to register for an account without account approval first. (A listing is at this link and the instances they are block are under the Bl column.)
The defederating from a place because it has open registrations means that Beehaw defederated from the largest Lemmy instances due to that (referring to lemmy.world). The concern is that open registration may let undesirable people register and they do not want to federate with an instance that would condone that. If they kept the federation intact, any users "openly registering" over there could just participate on Beehaw. Beehaw prefers that their participants are vetted by someone first.
https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/66921
As such, Beehaw's policy is to have a more isolated instance where they only interoperate with instances which are compatible with their overall mission statement. Some users prefer that and seek them out specifically for that. Other users are turned off by such things and find other instances to host their account.
Fortunately, you are able to create an account with whatever instance you want and migrate over to that new instance. Unfortunately, your account information cannot migrate over there (since Lemmy does not support that). Still, you should have account on an instance where you feel the most comfortable and then you can subscribe to communities across the Fediverse that interest you (assuming, of course, that your instance is not blocking them or is being blocked by them).
I see nothing wrong with that, they're their own instance and can do what they want, isn't that the point of Lemmy?
I don't view SDF as an org that would choose to remain federated with rammy, but I could be wrong. And if I am, I will leave and choose another instance. I chose it because it's local, has good uptime, and has a good history on the internet.
That's right, there is nothing wrong with what they (Beehaw) are doing. Some people find it desirable and join them due to that, others find it detracting and do not join, and even more people don't care one way or the other. People join instances for all sorts of reasons and variety helps create interesting choices.
I just mentioned what Beehaw was notable for doing in recent history since you were curious. Their actions did generate "a bit of buzz" on the Internet so people kind of associate them for the actions that they have taken.
I don't want to create an echo chamber, so lets make sure that people I disagree with can never talk to anyone who doesn't agree with them
Can you even read?
Maybe try making a better argument.
it’s active disinformation campaigns and propaganda.
That's for me to decide, not for you to decide on my behalf.
Edit:
Their instance continues to exist without us, their free speech continues, but by remaining federated we are giving them a platform.
This entire ideology is bullshit and I am not interested in being on instances run by people who believe it.
Then if SDF defederates from them, leave
You seem to misunderstand - SDF will not be changing its federation policy to suit you. This situation has come up before. Respectfully, I suggest you find another instance.
no u
You are aware that defederating from an instance won't stop individual users from that instance joining yours?
To be honest your view on things seems far too innocent, like paradox of tolerance manifest. What you desire is something that's fought for and fiercely defended. The rest of the internet should serve evidence for why we can't just have nice things.
Also did you look at the instances in question yourself?
What do you think the paradox of tolerance is? The reason why I ask is because it's commonly misunderstood, because the quote explaining it is taken out of context.
If you believe I used the term incorrectly please say so. Your phrasing comes off as you're someone who knows a thing, and wants everyone else to know they know.
I don't know if you used the term incorrectly or not, because I can't read your mind. It could either mean "You are naive like the paradox of tolerance warns us about" or "You are naive like the paradox of tolerance is".
The paradox is explicated by Karl Popper as
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.
When quoting this, people always use the first two sentences, but leave out the third.
First case; you cannot counter (in practice i.e. having an effect) the intolerant philosophies seen on these instances using rational argument as they do not appeal to rational thought. And because of this, not despite it, public opinion allows inhumane indignities to be acted upon marginalised demographics.
Also did you look at the instances in question yourself?
No. I'm operating under the principle that anything that I have to experience by going elsewhere practically proves that it isn't causing a problem here.
You are aware that defederating from an instance won’t stop individual users from that instance joining yours?
If defederation causes objectionable people that would otherwise leave the remaining network alone to -- because they were defederated -- to come here and everywhere and not leave other instances alone, then the best move from the network's perspective is to remain federated. Right?
funchords, ha, we don't know each other but we've bumped into each other before on reddit long ago and I remember your name and that you were in a barbershop quartet. looks like you picked a good instance as home, be well man :)
Hello again! Yes, that's me. I'm still in a quartet! ♫ Thanks for saying hello!