I was there, I saw the thread. @TheDude, did you? It was pretty strongly in favour. Do we really need to keep waiting around to see if an instance administrated by a guy who wants to declare “cis” a slur is going to turn out okay?

https://sh.itjust.works/post/216888 for context.

  • Sami@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you click on ‘Instances’ link on the very bottom of a page you can check who is defederated. Right now it looks to just be: burggit.moe lemmygrad.ml

    • socialjusticewizard@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, but we did vote strongly in favour of defederating exploding heads and I’m still seeing their alt-right garbage in my feed. I don’t have a lot more patience for people who clutch their pearls and wonder if it’s okay to infringe on the free speech rights of fascists than I do for the fascists themselves.

      • Sami@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you want to personally avoid it showing up on your feed you can just open the communities and block them (I don’t think there’s a way to block an entire instance yet unfortunately).

        But yeah I understand that it’s not ideal to have to do that to avoid seeing their garbage in your feed to begin with.

      • carbon_based@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        “We”? In numerous places i’ve seen “we” being annoyed by this defederation warrior nonsense, but instead we could come up with some clear guidelines … as it is instated now, you can go by the orderly procedure and start a discussion thread … uh wait …
        https://sh.itjust.works/post/281126
        https://sh.itjust.works/post/229169
        Or the extravagant way, get banned by the other instance: https://sh.itjust.works/post/225714

      • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        clutch their pearls and wonder if it’s okay to infringe on the free speech rights of fascists than I do for the fascists themselves.

        I didn’t know any of the instances were run by the government. Private companies (in this case, instances) can deplatform whoever they like and it’s not infringement. They are under no obligation, be it legal or just a back room handshake deal, to allow any speech on their platform.

        Whoever is clutching their pearls over it is either ill informed or disingenuous. There are plenty of both kinds of people spouting misinformation and disinformation.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re not, and they can absolutely decide to host or ban whatever they want. But I don’t think they should.

          When you start banning things you don’t like, you end up creating an echo chamber, and then you eventually get to the divisiveness that we have today. Liberals flock to X, Y, Z platforms, and conservatives flock to A, B, C platforms. That’s a problem, because it eliminates any kind of cross-pollination of ideas.

          That said, not all ideas are worth hosting. Harassment is never okay, so any individual, community, or instance that protects those who harass others should be blocked. But just having different ideas shouldn’t be grounds for blocking.

          We should absolutely not support cancel culture in any form, we should instead encourage dialogue. Instead of blocking people that think trans people are gross or whatever, we should be open to explaining how those views hurt real people. If you convince just one person, they’ll influence others and we’ll make progress toward broader acceptance. I draw the line at actual harassment, but ignorance shouldn’t result in a ban.

          So that’s why I urge restraint when blocking communities. We really don’t want to go down the road of blocking things we don’t like because that just puts up walls that fragments an already fragile community.

          • socialjusticewizard@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            God this argument is old and tired. Why don’t we just sit down with the fascists, surely if they understand we have feelings that they’re hurting, they’ll stop threatening us and our families. We just need to be nicer to them!

            You people don’t know any of the history of the 1930s.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s certainly a difference between an actual fascist (i.e. they literally don’t believe you should be allowed to live) and people you just disagree with. The first is a very small minority of people, yet a much larger group is labeled as such.

        • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why is it when a place claims to be for free thought and expression it’s always nonsense or harmful? Why does it have to be either fascist garbage, conspiracies that make absolutely no sense, or “artistic” pictures of children (photos or drawn)?

          • Sami@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because no other place tolerates them so they flock to any that do. That’s unfortunate reality of prioritizing ‘free speech’ over everything on a public internet space. You invite the baggage that comes with that.

            • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Absolute free speech shouldn’t exist. If that were the case, we’d be giving a platform to the worst of the worst. The most vile, hateful speech should not be allowed to exist in a society that claims to want safety, respect for all, and prosperity.

              The idea of absolute free speech requires the tolerance of hate, which allows the intolerant to drive out ideas that don’t align with theirs. See here, the Paradox of Tolerance.

          • Havoc8154
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because reasonable moderation and common sense boundaries don’t prevent free thought and expression for most people. So the main people that look for “free speech” communities are wild extremists or people seeking illegal material.