I figured since their admin has asked them to stop participating over here it may be worthwhile to get a new discussion going that is primarily blahaj. I'm almost certain they'll still be upvoting so keep that in mind as that may skew things. Worthwhile to check in from instances that have already defederated them. The previous thread definitely left a bad taste in my mouth but what do y'all think?
Old thread can be found here
EDIT: With regards to the post on new federation guidelines here: https://hexbear.net/post/352119
The current top comment is:
Every instance that has talked shit and got dogpiled should be thanking us for breathing some life into their dead and boring ass websites.
not from blahaj, but considering your concerns about federating with illegal content i feel like its important to note that calling for violence against or deaths of people or groups of people is illegal in large parts of the world, especially those that federation users will be from
I can't find any laws that would apply in Norway's or Minnesota's criminal codes. The only laws there that I can find concern threats against specific people and threats to commit terrorist acts. People saying "death to Lorem-Ipsumland" is most likely just going to be taken as free speech.
When I'm referring to "illegal content" I'm honestly specifically thinking of websites used in the proliferation of drugs, snuff, and sexual abuse material (incl. drawings thereof), and websites used to plan real-world criminal acts. It's also illegal to share memes based on anime fanart due to copyright infringement, but you don't really see anyone worrying about that, do you?
im sure that theres more uproar over hexbear for political reasons, but i feel like there are other valid reasons for copyright issues not causing as much concern as perceived death threats or calls to violence
Honestly, if you ask me, it's politics all the way down.
if youre unable or unwilling to accept that someone might feel more strongly about perceived death threats and calls for violence than copyright law for non political reasons, im not sure what to tell you
What would you consider to be "non-political"? You're under no obligation to respond, and if you don't want me to respond again, you can say so.
being generally opposed to death threats or calls to violence on a website you use, regardless of the political affiliations of the people making them, and regardless of the political affiliations of the people they're made towards
i interpreted your comment as believing that the above is not actually happening, and that any issues with death threats are actually entirely because of who is (perceived to be) threatened and who is (perceived to be) threatening them, and i feel like that is unfair
i understand how this might be a misinterpretation, for instance because you consider 'being against death threats or calls to violence' to inherently be a political ideal
Generally opposed for what reason? Is it maybe a moral judgment, and if so, where did you get your morals from? Is it more that it just makes you feel uncomfortable, and if so why does it make you feel that way? If it's something else, then what is it and why? Do you think that there may have been a difference of experience that led one community to find calls to violence to be acceptable, while your community finds that type of behavior to be completely reprehensible? What sort of difference of experience might that be? Have you ever thought to look into that?
These are the questions that I want you to seriously reflect on. Again, you have no obligation to respond, you can even dismiss this whole comment and say that these are all loaded questions, and tell me to stop replying if I'm being annoying and you've had enough. All of that is completely fair.
Sorry, I didn't see that you edited this. Yes, that would be unfair.