Mandrake -> Whatever came on the Linux Magazine CD -> Backtrack -> Arch

You don’t seem to understand, that they shouldn’t have to. Curate? Yes. Moderate? No.

Yes, semantics.

Users choose to Curate which communities they go into. They do this with full access to the rules of the community and the ability to instantly opt out of that community or instance should it become distasteful to them. Moderation of those communities is up to the owner of the community and is operated under the rules of the instance admins. Users choose to read and subscribe to these communities and if they’re not happy with the moderation then they can choose to curate those communities out of their feed.

What, exactly, is preventing instances who differ on the matter from co-existing?

Administrators who defederate over differences in moderation choices rather than moderate their own communities and let their users choose what communities they want to see.

It’s honestly surprising you didn’t get an instance ban since lemmy.world does ban people for transphobia these days. I guess @MrKaplan@lemmy.world just didn’t notice it.

I welcome the administrator (@MrKaplan@lemmy.world) to read my comments. There is nothing transphobic about anything I said.

Accusing a person of bigotry rather than addressing them like a person is a well worn Internet argument tactic. Which was the entire point of the post and my comment that spawned it.

I’ve seen Ada talk to people who were 90% a troll in an effort to educate someone. You can DM her and ask questions if you want.

No thanks, I’ve participated in a thread (see my post in this community) on a topic that the Blahj community decided that I wasn’t educated in. There was a lot more attacks than good faith efforts to have a conversation.

aka not having to fight to justify your existence.

No, I mean such as having people who think it is acceptable to put words in another person’s mouth.

If another instance makes people fight to justify their existence then it doesn’t fit blahaj’s goals and defederation is the solution.

Defederation isn’t the solution. Users can block instances if they want. No instance is sending their content to Blahj, Blahj users are requesting that content.

Go and look in The Agora on your own instance and look at the discussion thread about defederation. TheDude weighs in on the topic as well if I recall.

You moderate a community, you have to know that if a user is being disruptive you don’t need the admins of their instance in order to secure your community from their disruption.

There is zero reason to involve the admin of another instance unless you need to handle things like networking or technical issues (like a spam attack coming from an instance).

For blahaj to ask other instances “hey, will you uphold this standard, if not, we don’t have the bandwidth to be doing it for you on our end, so if you aren’t, we need to know so we can make a decision on whether to federate” is not a fucking power trip.

Blahj moderators do not need to moderate non-Blahj instances. There is no bandwidth issue. The Blahj team only needs to moderate the Blahj community.

The user in question wasn’t posting in a Blahj community and so it doesn’t affect Blahj users unless they choose to go into Feddit.uk communities.

That’s how the federated social media system works.

A user can choose to never see anything but local communities. If a user chooses to visit non-Blahj communities then they read what is in that community, based on that community’s rules. A user can block any disturbing user, community or instances. The user gets to choose these things for themselves.

Users can moderate their feeds. Moderators can moderate their communities.

None of this requires a server admin. Defederation is an admin function, not a moderation function.

What the admin has done is to tell Blahj users that they can no longer read the communities that they’ve chosen to subscribe to and the communities on Feddit.uk are now deprived of their members (who choose to subscribe and participate) from the Blahj instance.

It doesn’t serve anybody’s interests except for the instance administrator. The administrator who said that they did it because they asked another instance to ban a user and change their instance rules and the Feddit.uk admins refused. This is entirely an issue between administrators that one administrator has chosen to escalate.

Possibly, but I’m just a user so my failings only affect me, and not the greater social media community.

To be honest we were just getting sick of all the posts complaining about Blajah’s policy of banning folks who they consider to be transphobic from their instance. No pressure was applied from Blajah, we just felt it was the right thing to do. Your whole narrative is bullshit tbh.

You’re running the ‘Are these people are power tripping?’ community in the Fediverse, a community of majority left wing people, and you get a lot of people posting about a single instance, so much so that it dominates the posts to the point that requires moderation intervention.

You can read that in a lot of ways.

One of the ways to read it is that the instance’s admins are power tripping. That doesn’t mean that they’re not trying to create a safe space or that there are not some transphobes. All of these things can be true at once. Some people get caught up in the righteousness of their cause and fail to consider how their actions affect others.

The kind of people you’re talking about are not going to be affected by Blahj defederating feddit.uk. If a person is looking to commit harassment then they’re going to make a new account and no amount of defederation will prevent this (unless Blahj, like Beehaw, goes private) because it is trivial to make an accounts on non-blocked instances.

They don’t need to moderate the entire fediverse, they only need to moderate their communities.

In this situation, what is the goal here? What purpose is served, from the point of view of a Blahj users if another user, who isn’t a Blahj user and isn’t commenting in Blahj communities is banned from a non-Blahj instance? Users can already block instances, communities and individuals on their own. Users can already choose to only see local Blahj communities if they want to ensure that they’re in a safe space and the Blahj admins have full control over the Blahj communities.

The Blahj admin’s opinion doesn’t matter when the topic is a non-blahj user, in a non-blahj community. They’re certainly free to block whoever they want, or not; and federate with who they want to or not.

But, in the context of “Are they power tripping or not”, choosing to defederate an instance simply because an admin brushed them off puts it squarely in the “power tripping” pile. It wasn’t that feddit.uk was suddenly the source of a lot of transphobic attacks, or that they allow bigotry… it was that feddit.uk has different moderation practices then Blahj and refused to change them. It’s petty and power tripping.

Defederation isn’t the tool for this. It’s a low level tool to prevent bad instances, like spam or illegal content, from infecting the rest of the network.

Admins and moderators already have the tools they need to moderate their communities. Instance members who want to stay inside the bubble of increased moderation also have that choice, if a Blahj user clicks ‘Local’ then they will only see communities that are completely under the control and moderation of their local admins. If a user, like the one in the OP, behaves badly then their ban will remove them.

It isn’t the role of an instance admin to moderate all of federated social media. A user can block a community or instance on their own. They do not require an admin to do that for them.

Federation isn’t a moderation tool.

Just because there’s a workaround doesn’t make it not a problem.

It’s like the Right in the US saying ‘Well if you don’t want to be deported, you can just leave’, while technically true… it doesn’t mean that the administration is doing things which are morally defensible.

Safe spaces are not a bad thing. Echo chambers are only echo chambers if the people inside them don’t move in and out as needed. Which at least I do, do. Discussion is good, but it cannot be mandatory, as those who cannot, do not want to, or are not ready to engage in it, can be harmed by it.

Yes, I agree.

If a Blahj user can’t move into an echo chamber (Blahj communities) and out of the echo chamber (the rest of the fediverse) then Blahj is, by this definition, an echo chamber. A single person choosing to remove the option from every Blahj user to leave the echo chamber would be bad.

An example of such a behavior would be if the single person defederated another instance from Blahj, preventing the Blahj users from being able to choose to access the external discussion.

A safe space would be, for example, a Blahj community on a Blahj server. This is a good thing, because it gives people the ability to access a safe space. It becomes a bad thing when that safe space is ran by people who want to isolate their users from the greater social media landscape ‘for their protection’.

Users can choose which communities they subscribe to. Blahj users could choose to avoid Feddit.uk or they could choose to read Feddit.uk. Now they can’t.

According to the Arch Wiki, it’s the driver recommended by NVIDIA and, anecdotally, I was having issues in Wayland and with gamescope/HDR until I switched to the nvidia-open drivers.

Oh yes, very keen of you.

You scrubbed through my post history and found my only post (which I was hiding by mentioning it in my comment in this very thread). Another example of the Blahj admins using ‘transphobic’ like Israel uses ‘antisemetic’, as a cudgel against everyone not towing the party line.

The comment thread started with a person explaining the importance of discussion in winning over allies and avoiding creating an echo chamber. You implied that their suggestion was making trans people less safe.

That does not follow, it isn’t an attempt to address their point. It is a non sequitor.

It is simply changing the conversation topic by accusing the person of a harm in order to make them defend themself rather than addressing the topic at hand (i.e. Creating an echo chamber is bad, conversation is good).

You think a single insult buried in a logical argument disqualifies the whole thing.

You’re not engaging in a conversation. A conversation requires a good faith effort to understand the other side. Using logical fallacies to discredit the other person is not something done in good faith. It isn’t a single insult, it’s the rhetorical tactics that you’re using.

It’s possible that you don’t realize what you’re doing. Maybe you grew up on social media where this kind of thing can appear acceptable (or, at least, gets upvotes because its outrageous behavior).

Or maybe you’re a little older and wiser and know exactly what you’re doing, but think that the ends justify the means. So you’re just getting some good shots in on the other for your side and ignoring the human being on the other end.

Either way, it’s toxic.

Oh yeah, well you’re a Nazi.

Ah.

You don’t need to do any of this.

If your drive is not encrypted, then this won’t save you. It takes time to overwrite files and if your computer were the target of any adversary, they would simply unplug it immediately and then image it.

If your drive is encrypted, then you can just overwrite the headers that contain the key slots. This would take hundredths of a second.

If you can’t understand my point then I’m not going to draw you a picture.

Ok, if we disregard all of the hyperbole, then it’s very simple.

The admins have the ability to ban the problem user from their communities. If their goal is to protect their communities, then they can ban the user with 3 clicks.

There is zero reason to contact another instance’s admins and even less of a reason to treat being brushed off as an excuse to ban thousands of people on that instance via defederation.

Banning the user would be justified, banning the entire instance is power tripping.

I am suggesting that ad hominem and non sequitors are the tools of non-serious people who are more interested in performative commenting than having a conversation.

Nothing says you’re against murder and erasure like gleefully explaining how you would kill somebody.