210

Is defederation from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works still necessary? (beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by theangriestbird@beehaw.org to c/support@beehaw.org

145 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is more of a question for the admins, but this can certainly be a more open discussion.

Per this thread, beehaw defederated from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works two months ago, around the time that the reddit exodus was happening. Lemmy was blowing up, those instances had an open sign-up policy, and this meant that admins of other instances (like Beehaw) that wanted to heavily moderate their communities became quickly overwhelmed with the number of users from these two instances. Beehaw defederated to make the workload more realistic.

Two months on, I'm wondering if this defederation is still necessary. It seems to me that Lemmy overall has slowed down a lot, and maybe the flow of users from these outside servers would not be as overwhelming as it was before? I respect the decision of the admins one way or the other - I know that the lack of moderation tools was another factor in this decision. I'm just curious if this is something that has been considered recently?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Senal@programming.dev 30 points 1 year ago

Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Blocking someone because they don’t agree with you telling them they are “absolutely wrong” isn’t civil or rational discourse

Who says that is the objective of blocking and why should I extend that courtesy to people who are behaving neither civilly nor rationally?

If I go to a bar and someone next to me keeps chiming in on my conversations with homophobic takes, I'm going to pick up my beer and move away from them (block them). What moral imperative do I have to give them the time of day, and how does letting them constantly shoehorn bigotry into my discussions undermine "civil and rational discourse"? If that person keeps doing this to people, is the bar owner required to allow them to stay, or can they show them the door?

Calls for civility, free speech arguments, etc. are all cudgels used by people who want to go where they want and say what they want without scrutiny and I for one have no desire to adhere to some arbitrary moral standard imposed on me by people who want to behave that way. If you want to behave like an ass and pursue me, then I'm cutting you out of my life. No one would blame me at a bar, why should they on my favorite gaming forums?

[-] Antik@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

As one of the Bar owners of Lemmy World, we show anyone with homophobic takes the door.

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

Glad to hear it. I think too many mods/admins fall into the trappings of free speech arguments and "letting healthy dialogue happen" because it's an ideal that we've all sort of internalized, often to our own detriment because we don't want to appear "too biased" or like "power tripping jannies." The reality is it's a pretty simple equation: if someone is sufficiently disruptive that's plenty of reason to remove them.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Indeed, the paradox of tolerance is real https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

At least for me and by the sounds of it, you.

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Very real and very much something people need to learn to apply!

[-] fwygon@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

Telling someone that they are "Absolutely wrong" is within my right and is also a very polite way to indicate to someone to shut up and listen without saying it; and that attempting to talk with me further on the topic will not be civil or fruitful.

Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.

Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

[-] Senal@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Absolutely within your rights, depending on the instance you are on and if the rules are enforced i suppose. Same as anything anybody else says. One of the main draws of the fediverse, no ?

I doubt "Absolutely wrong" would be read as "shut up and listen" in most contexts but i could be in the minority here.

Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.

Agreed , i do it too, frequently.

Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

i don't have an opinion on how blunt you should be with people, your call.

Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.

Arguing semantics is ugly when done in bad faith ,but i'm not trolling or baiting you , i just happen to think word choice is important in some situations. (for a given value of important, i mean it's not life or death here or anything)

In this case i (personally) read it as "I block people who don't agree with my very well reasoned opinion, even after i graciously explained it to them, they just won't listen to me and keep replying".

and most of that comes from the use of the term "Absolutely wrong" which is an absolute, by definition and leaves no room for other opinions or options.

As you said, you can use whatever words you like, at least one person thinks your use of absolutes in statements detracts from your otherwise cogent arguments, do with that what you will.