Don’t be disingenuous. Genuine consent practices also consider that not everyone else consents to witnessing their play, so they don’t do it where it’s not welcomed. And it’s not welcomed on Blahaj Zone, in this case. That’s all.

is this concern based in fact, or emotion?

Ada was clear in another comment thread that yes, emotion was absolutely involved in her decision. That isn’t a bad thing. Why is there a social attitude that decision-making is only valid if it’s cold and unfeeling?

Personally I’m in the camp of “let consenting adults do adult things”

Me too. I don’t think anyone is arguing against that. Anyone can still access LemmyNSFW’s content elsewhere, Blahaj Zone simply isn’t going to relay it anymore because some of it is incompatible with Ada’s goals in nurturing this community.

But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem?

Yes. Legality has nothing to do with acceptability. This instance already bans lots of content that doesn’t actually violate any laws. It’s a judgment call.

Honestly without anyone citing the actual post in question it's literally impossible for any of us to make up our own minds on the content. All we have is one admin's word vs another.

Sure, but this isn’t a poll. This is an admin decision that has been made. I appreciate knowing that she made it and why. And if the material looks like CSAM to her — even if it’s actually not — then of course she wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) point anyone to it.

At the same time it does kinda seem like the blahaj admins wanted to defederate anyway and finally found a convenient scapegoat

She doesn’t need a scapegoat, she’s the Blahaj Zone admin. If she’d wanted to defederate with them before today, nothing was stopping her. To the contrary, a request had already been made for this action about a month ago and Ada said “I haven’t seen any reports coming through for content from that instance, which makes it hard to choose to defederate, because I haven’t seen any examples of the problems you describe to get a sense of how the admins are responding.”

it seems odd that one would completely defederate an entire instance over a single post.

Except she didn’t. She defederated because of the LemmyNSFW admins’ response (or lack thereof) to the problematic content they were federating outward and thus got copied onto a storage device that Ada is responsible for. She clearly doesn’t need the ethical nor the potential legal headaches.

People act like defederation is some horrible thing, but really, it’s one of the things that makes the Fediverse so good. Centralized platforms have executives that have to answer to the entire user base plus advertisers, and everyone is stuck with their decisions. On Lemmy, instance admins make the best decisions for the community they want to build, and any user who doesn’t like it can set up a secondary account or fully migrate to another instance that fits their needs better without losing access to their social network.

I enjoy NSFW content, but I certainly don’t want to stumble into “how close to CSAM can we get while staying technically legal?” content. And the bullshit lie about this being “body shaming” pisses me off.

This admin decision obviously isn’t up for a vote, but it’s just so obviously the right call. Thank you Ada for handling this, and I’m sorry (in the Canadian way, not the guilty way 😉🇨🇦) you had to see any of that.

Truthfully, bigotry and harmful content should be reported, not downvoted. 🙂 Our local admins are very responsive, and they’ll defederate from any other instances that sanction or defend that stuff.

No worries, things happen — and you’re community-building volunteers, not an on-call rotation. 💜 I’m just glad we’re back now! Thanks for your efforts during these past 24 hours. 🏳️‍⚧️😊

I haven’t seen any discussion of it here, but I’m all in favour of preemptive blocking. Meta/FB/IG cannot and must not be trusted to be a good fediverse citizen (government? instance-nation? I’m not sure how my own metaphor should work. 😆). Give an inch, they’ll take a mile.

Downvotes are disabled on this (lemmy.blahaj.zone) instance. 😉

That said… I’m personally quite anti-gun, but I accept there are plenty of queerfolk who feel differently. Hopefully Lemmy will soon allow users to mute specific communities so I won’t see this group’s content in my Local feed. But my dislike doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a safe and welcoming place for their discussions, so I still wouldn’t downvote this even if I could. 🙂

No need to complain. Just go to your settings page and select a different Theme.

Eep! Wishing you a speedy recovery, @[email protected]! Take care of yourself first, we’ll understand if things here go wonky for a bit. 💜

Would it be possible to enable this at the topic level but not the comment level? My thinking is that it makes sense for helping users decide what posts to read in the first place, but would still discourage low-effort negativity that doesn’t actually contribute to a discussion.

But even if the answer to that is “no”… I don’t strongly object to trying this out and seeing how it works for this community. 🙂 If de-weighted downvotes still lead to problems, the change could always be reverted. Thank you for exploring the options!

A “gotcha” I just discovered: even though the selector uses radio buttons (which usually means you can only choose one), this is a multi-select list. So if you don’t also choose English (and/or other languages you understand), you’ll miss content that does have a language tag.

Designing UI ain’t easy.