this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
38 points (75.0% liked)

sh.itjust.works Main Community

7751 readers
3 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

Matrix

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was there, I saw the thread. @TheDude, did you? It was pretty strongly in favour. Do we really need to keep waiting around to see if an instance administrated by a guy who wants to declare "cis" a slur is going to turn out okay?

https://sh.itjust.works/post/216888 for context.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you click on 'Instances' link on the very bottom of a page you can check who is defederated. Right now it looks to just be: burggit.moe lemmygrad.ml

[–] socialjusticewizard 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Indeed, but we did vote strongly in favour of defederating exploding heads and I'm still seeing their alt-right garbage in my feed. I don't have a lot more patience for people who clutch their pearls and wonder if it's okay to infringe on the free speech rights of fascists than I do for the fascists themselves.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

If you want to personally avoid it showing up on your feed you can just open the communities and block them (I don't think there's a way to block an entire instance yet unfortunately).

But yeah I understand that it's not ideal to have to do that to avoid seeing their garbage in your feed to begin with.

[–] carbon_based 6 points 2 years ago

"We"? In numerous places i've seen "we" being annoyed by this defederation warrior nonsense, but instead we could come up with some clear guidelines ... as it is instated now, you can go by the orderly procedure and start a discussion thread ... uh wait ...
https://sh.itjust.works/post/281126
https://sh.itjust.works/post/229169
Or the extravagant way, get banned by the other instance: https://sh.itjust.works/post/225714

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

clutch their pearls and wonder if it's okay to infringe on the free speech rights of fascists than I do for the fascists themselves.

I didn't know any of the instances were run by the government. Private companies (in this case, instances) can deplatform whoever they like and it's not infringement. They are under no obligation, be it legal or just a back room handshake deal, to allow any speech on their platform.

Whoever is clutching their pearls over it is either ill informed or disingenuous. There are plenty of both kinds of people spouting misinformation and disinformation.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They're not, and they can absolutely decide to host or ban whatever they want. But I don't think they should.

When you start banning things you don't like, you end up creating an echo chamber, and then you eventually get to the divisiveness that we have today. Liberals flock to X, Y, Z platforms, and conservatives flock to A, B, C platforms. That's a problem, because it eliminates any kind of cross-pollination of ideas.

That said, not all ideas are worth hosting. Harassment is never okay, so any individual, community, or instance that protects those who harass others should be blocked. But just having different ideas shouldn't be grounds for blocking.

We should absolutely not support cancel culture in any form, we should instead encourage dialogue. Instead of blocking people that think trans people are gross or whatever, we should be open to explaining how those views hurt real people. If you convince just one person, they'll influence others and we'll make progress toward broader acceptance. I draw the line at actual harassment, but ignorance shouldn't result in a ban.

So that's why I urge restraint when blocking communities. We really don't want to go down the road of blocking things we don't like because that just puts up walls that fragments an already fragile community.

[–] socialjusticewizard 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

God this argument is old and tired. Why don't we just sit down with the fascists, surely if they understand we have feelings that they're hurting, they'll stop threatening us and our families. We just need to be nicer to them!

You people don't know any of the history of the 1930s.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 2 years ago

There's certainly a difference between an actual fascist (i.e. they literally don't believe you should be allowed to live) and people you just disagree with. The first is a very small minority of people, yet a much larger group is labeled as such.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why is it when a place claims to be for free thought and expression it's always nonsense or harmful? Why does it have to be either fascist garbage, conspiracies that make absolutely no sense, or "artistic" pictures of children (photos or drawn)?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because no other place tolerates them so they flock to any that do. That's unfortunate reality of prioritizing 'free speech' over everything on a public internet space. You invite the baggage that comes with that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Absolute free speech shouldn't exist. If that were the case, we'd be giving a platform to the worst of the worst. The most vile, hateful speech should not be allowed to exist in a society that claims to want safety, respect for all, and prosperity.

The idea of absolute free speech requires the tolerance of hate, which allows the intolerant to drive out ideas that don't align with theirs. See here, the Paradox of Tolerance.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago

Because reasonable moderation and common sense boundaries don't prevent free thought and expression for most people. So the main people that look for "free speech" communities are wild extremists or people seeking illegal material.