Shihali

I have no trouble seeing things but I'm on another instance.

You've quit discussing in good faith and gone all-in on slinging insults, so it's time to end this thread.

If you've already concluded that Jane Churchlady, a figure I constructed to be a social conservative who isn't an extremist, is in reality an extremist then we've been talking past each other for quite a while.

So you're very worried that if Christian bien-pensants are exposed to Jane Churchlady saying that gay marriage is against the will of God and she's praying for gay couples, several of them will think she has a point and drift rightward, and preventing that is worth driving Jane Churchlady herself into extremism? I'd discounted the possibility that Jane Churchlady would convert anyone rather than be a nuisance. I can follow your logic now, although your conclusion that building a fence around bien-pensants is worth outright handing a 10-20% market share to extremists is a hard pill to swallow.

But the way, if you felt insulted it might be because the hat fits, my last paragraph was purely rhetorical.

Your answer to being called out making a backhanded accusation is to make another backhanded accusation?

You deeply misunderstood my argument and threw in gratuitous insults. So I'll try to explain it again with a character.

Jane Churchlady is a social conservative. She believes that God disapproves of homosexuality. She thinks same-sex marriage shouldn't have been made legal, and she says so. She votes for the local right-wing party, but she can't bring herself to vote for the racist far right party. Jane Churchlady will not change her belief that God disapproves of homosexuality, and isn't willing to lie about it to stay on a social network.

What do you do when Jane Churchlady registers for Lemmy?

1. If you let Jane Churchlady stay, she says that while she prays for gay people, they are sinful in the eyes of God.

2. If you ban Jane Churchlady, she's out of your feed, but she registers for Gab instead and starts voting for the racist far right party after reading the posts there. Because you tried to deplatform her, she has been radicalized. If you hadn't tried to deplatform her, she wouldn't have switched to Gab and wouldn't have been radicalized.

3. If you've got a third scenario, tell me what happens to Jane Churchlady.

Aye

I think we might be arguing two slightly different things here. You're worried about the consequences of not shunning extremists hard enough to keep groups that are already down, down. I'm worried about the consequences of shunning people who are neither bien-pensants nor extremists as extremists, because it's a strong incentive for the mal-pensants to support the extremists if not become extremists.

Also, your argument turns on the assumption that the extremists are incapable of making their own platforms and must rely on platforms offered by others. My argument is that if you deplatform anyone within eyesight of an extremist, it's a matter of time before you've deplatformed so many people that they build their own successful platform. And the platform of the deplatformed will be ugly.

If the instances that want to be a safe space defederate from instances espousing an ideology they can't stand, I don't see the problem. If an LGBTQIA+ instance and a Salafi Muslim instance defederate each other, most of their members are going to be happier even though it might be hard on gay Salafis.

"This generalist instance I am on shouldn't tolerate Salafis and I demand we defederate the Salafi instance tomorrow" sounds the same in outline, but feels very different. It's closer to an attempt to push your enemies out of the public square than an attempt to prevent harassment of your private meeting.

I think your idea of ten ~~thousand~~ million small instances is what the fediverse was meant to be, but if you don't have the resources to run your very own instance and you have multiple small interests instead of one life-consuming one, it's a severe problem. Do I join the instance dedicated to bullet journaling, or the instance dedicated to Final Fantasy XIV, or the instance dedicated to Tolkien? Which instance will tolerate me posting on a debate instance and posting in a language other than English?

It's much easier to join a generalist instance that will tolerate all of that, but that means the generalist instance has to be willing to tolerate the debaters (who will break down into rude squabbling), a Tolkien fan saying that Tolkien probably wouldn't have approved of the new MtG cards, and other things of which censorious progressives disapprove.

I'm interested in an answer to the problem, because having too many instances to choose from and that choice mattering a fair bit is a big barrier to more people joining the fediverse.

P.S. This is the third time I've had to restart my comment due to vanishing. Is there a known issue with comments in progress vanishing?

@[email protected] If you buy the oldest FFs, 1-3, keep in mind that the versions on Steam have massive changes to game mechanics to make the games easier and more like FF7. I don't think it does FF1 any favors because the difficulty was a lot of what the game had going for it on replays, but if you just want to say you beat FF1 the Steam version does the job.

I'm thinking of picking up SaGa Frontier myself. Does it seem worth $15 to people?

I worry that this "banish them to the corner" policy will combine with rapidly changing limits on acceptable speech and thought to hand the extremists a growing captive audience of resentful exiles. Is it really worth banishing Jane Churchlady if the price is making Gab a mainstream social network?

Someone I trust said that the Elvish dialogue that they charge extra for is badly pronounced and so garbled that it's not even intelligible most of the time. Mismanaged?