421
submitted 3 weeks ago by randamumaki to c/memes@lemmy.world

What'd I miss?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

That's a big distortion. They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views. Many of them are also LGBT, but that's not why they are on the block list.

I do think it's problematic for a client/frontend to default-block any group of individuals or instances at all, but portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it's not is pretty messed up too.

[-] gh0stcassette 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

but portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it's not is pretty messed up too.

Explain to me the non-bigoted reason for blocking the entire lemmy.blahaj.zone instance (which is predominantly trans), as well as blocking various terms related to queer identities. (Hint: there isn't one, fuck this guy.)

[-] randamumaki 10 points 3 weeks ago

Aw, you poor widdle soul. Stating they are advocating "problematic political views" is just telling on yourself, isn't it?

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

You're right, I should specify (although the condescension is not helping your case). They are views deemed problematic by the Tesseract dev.

I've had run-ins with other devs or instance admins who find my views problematic, and banned me from their community/instance/whatever. That's unfortunate, but it's transparent. People know who the petty tyrants are and act accordingly.

This is something different.

Having a frontend preemptively blocking users and instances based on the sole judgment of the dev is unprecedented AFAIK. We don't need to invent intimations of bigotry to see why this is wholly bad for the platform. It goes against basic principles of transparency, openness, and free choice that the Fediverse is based on.

I believe that a front-end (client) should be a tool to access the service/network. It shouldn't be making content decisions. If someone wants to make a block list and publish it for others to use, that's great. If someone wants to trust an admin for content curation/blocking, well... that's how this whole thing works. People choose or change instances based largely on that trust. But to have a tool for accessing the network also modifying the content? That's bad, and a bad precedent.

[-] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

You didn't see the Tesseract admin's deleted rant then huh.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago
[-] starik@lemmy.today 4 points 3 weeks ago

The TL;DR is TL

[-] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Oh you did. Hmm. Thanks for posting the link, I thought it was lost by deletion.

[-] kamikazerusher@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

They are accounts that advocate violence or other problematic political views.

My username appears on the list and I don’t believe my comment history aligns with this statement at all. I believe my username is just unique enough to not have another instance of it. Selection of some usernames do not appear to support their (admiralpatrick) claims of violence advocation nor extreme political views.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

See, THIS is the issue I wish people would focus on. The dev of a pretty important frontend has set up a block list. They have made it the default. They have not applied a clear and equitable criteria, set up a community feedback channel, or any sort of crowdsourced input.

The modlog is open, meaning that anyone can see exactly what moderators and admins (generally) are up to. People can (and do) push back when things decisions are punitive, arbitrary, or unclear.

This is not that. You have no way to see why your username was included, or correct it if it was in error. There is no community feedback to direct what standard makes sense.

That's the problem. It's draconian. By manufacturing some shrill accusations of bigotry, yeah, it makes a lot more flashy posts, but doesn't help in addressing the issue. If we can't accurately name problems, we can't solve them. We are just a mob on a witch-hunt.

[-] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

You could have said something as innocuous and logical as trans folks have the right to defend themselves or a thousand other violence adjacent notions. Objection to violence outright is just navel gazy utopic thinking. It sounds nice but it isn't practical reality. There is always a line.

[-] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I noticed that they also banned some accounts that have 0 interactions (comments and posts) which is kinda stupid lol

(Example of an account: Axolotlqueen)

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Guessing you checked the list for your name again right before posting this lol

Why would you believe that reasoning? This guy is your friend or something?

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Nope, I'm just a rational person who doesn't automatically buy into hysteria.

[-] gh0stcassette 9 points 3 weeks ago

Nope, I'm just a rational person who doesn't automatically buy into hysteria.

Wow you're so much smarter and better than everyone, you're so cool(🖕)

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Believing without questioning some shit you read on the Internet is the last thing I would call rational

[-] waterbird 2 points 3 weeks ago
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

In my experience anonymous people online don't hide their bigotry behind an eloborate 10-point system. In this case, yes. I believe the motivation is exactly as it's presented.

The fact that the dev clearly thinks it is a fair justification shows exactly the mindset. The problem is bad enough on its own without making up additional poorly founded accusations.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Now you're just making up shit that I supposedly believe. The far more likely explanation for them doing this is "whatever reason they have at the time for not liking someone".

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

portrayimg it as motivated by bigotry when it's not

This is the thread you are replying to. If you are discussing something else, I'm afraid you'll have to specify it.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Disagreeing with your naivity is not the same as agreeing with everyone else who disagrees with you.

[-] Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Take all the time you need.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

What is it motivated by?

this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
421 points (100.0% liked)

memes

22411 readers
1789 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS