That post explicitly says it’s not a place for debate or participation from users of other instances.
I’d like to respect that but I think events like this need debate and discussion because it helps to develop and evolve the culture of lemmy and the fediverse in general.
The post says:
This post is “FYI only” for blahaj lemmy members. It is not a debate, and is not intended for non blahaj lemmy users to weigh in and offer opinions.
I recently received reports of a feddit.uk user espousing transphobia. Specifically, this was a feddit.uk user refusing to use the word cis, repeating the “adult human female” dog whistle, and claiming that trans women are not women. I approached a member of the feddit.uk admin team and raised my concerns and sought clarification of their stance on posts like this, where the transphobia is mostly dogwhistles, and “civil disagreement” on the validity of trans folk.
I was told by the feddit.uk admin that their preferred response is this kind of transphobia is to “sort it out through discussion and voting”. However, the comments in question are currently more upvoted than downvoted, and little “sorting out” has occurred. The posts remain in place.
At this point, the admin stopped responding to my messages despite being active elsewhere on lemmy. When it became clear they were ignoring my messages and had no intention of removing the posts in question, I made the decision to defederate the instance.
I know some folk agree with the feddit.uk admins approach of pushback through discussion and voting, but this instance is not designed to be that kind of space. Blahaj lemmy is meant to be a place where we can avoid the rampant transphobia universally visible on nearly every other social media platform, and where we can exist without needing to debate our right to do so.
makes sense to me, that is what blahaj is for 😒 besides people that agree with that user don’t want to interact with blahaj. And those that do could do it elsewhere
Seems fair, I don’t think this is PTB
I’ve composed a little ditty for my barbershop quartet:
“Hell Yeah!”
I’m afraid it loses something in text.
PTB
Blahj is a problem instance.
The important distinction here is that they’re not simply trying to moderate their communities. They’re free to moderate their communities for their users. They want to push their rules on other instances.
They’re not free to dictate to the greater social media space the acceptable policies on discourse. Their admins are constantly trying to enforce their ban lists on other servers and communities (or else, you see what happened to feddit.uk).
To see this, go make a new account and get banned from Blahj (you don’t even have to post in their communities, see my PTB post as an example) and you’ll see that 40+ other completely unrelated communities will also automatically ban you. This is the result of their backroom bullying and toxic behavior towards other admins/mods.
It’s easier for an admin or moderator to simply accept their bans than to deal with admins who will take extreme measures, like defederate your entire instance (and lobby others to defederate you) if you don’t accept their dictates.
If their goal is to create an instance with communities for trans people then banning users from their communities would serve their goals.
But, that isn’t what they’re trying to do. This isn’t about creating a safe space, they have all of the tools that they need to make Blahj safe. Blahj users in Blahj communities could have been protected from this problem user by the user being banned.
There’s no need to contact the admins of other instances to ban a user from your instance or from your communities. Trying to bully other instances or communities isn’t required and it is incredibly toxic. Even the moderator here, in this community, has received pressure from Blahj admins about suppressing topics related to Blahj.
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.
In reality, the fediverse is (mostly) quite left wing compared to most other social media spaces, so obviously the majority of instances are gonna be supportive of Blajah’s attempt to create a safe space for those folks who need or want that. While we don’t run dbzer0 as a safe space, I think it’s great that those spaces exist. And they only exist at all because Ada and her team go to a lot of effort to keep it that way.
And by way of comparison, we recently had a vote in our governance community about defederating from another instance because their admin initially didn’t want to take action against some right wing communities, and we felt it was becoming a nazi bar situation. The whole point of having the vote was to apply pressure on the admin to deal with it. And there was a positive outcome because the admin did deal with it and so we didn’t defederate. I mean sure, the admin didn’t like being pressured, but it got the job done.
Hopefully feddit.uk will change their policy to explicitly ban anti-trans dogwhistles, and the fediverse will be better for it imo. Freeze peach instances all become nazi-bars before long.
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.
Hey, I’m a dbzer0 member (I even contribute financially to keep it running) and I’m one of the people who complained about how salty suckers like you come in all the goddamned time to complain about blahaj.
It’s not because Ada is doing anything wrong, it’s because enough of you don’t like what she’s doing that you whine and complain every chance you get. And you don’t even have the decency to complain about different things!
Waaaah! Ada banned me! But I feel like I wasn’t transphobic/I wasn’t on blahaj when I said that/but what about free speech/but what about my feelings?
And so it’s the same post, over and over. And the community rules the same way, over and over. Surprise! Ada made a safe space for blahaj members! They love what she’s doing and thank her for it! No one over there is sad that you’re gone! The fediverse is working as intended!
Not only that, every time one of you makes the same tired, self-centered post, it doesn’t matter if you’re downvoted to oblivion. It doesn’t matter if the community hands your ass to you. You linger. And the next prick shows up and complains. And the community gives them the finger. But the first asshole is here still, and he tells the second asshole that they’re right! And Ada is a monster! And the community is wrong!
So they linger. And the next prick comes along. And the community tells them to fuck right off. But now two assholes tell them that the community is wrong. Ada is a power tripper. Free speech. You weren’t actually transphobic. You’re right. Everyone else is wrong.
And now, in this very thread, we have like five assholes who all made posts to YPTB, complaining about Ada. And you’re finding each other and you’re turning our community into enough assholes that you’ll eventually have enough to turn every. Goddamn. Post. Into your little butt-hurt pow-wow.
So not only are you posting the same tired bullshit over and over and over, even though the community has made it clear what they think- you’re also using these posts to build a shitbird coalition. So. Why the ruck would anyone intentionally allow that to continue? These “Ada was mean to me” posts add nothing of value, and they empower a removed element.
Ada and I have never exchanged words (that I remember, fediverse is a big place) and zero blahaj members have ever asked me to complain about people constantly having the same goddamn problem with blahaj. So let me just nip this in the bud right now- dbzer0 is a self-governing instance, and if enough of us think you’re being a whiny removed, no one has to come and try to dictate what is and isn’t allowed in our community.
TL;DR I know you feel empowered with your handful of transphobic asshole friends here to upvote you and back you up, but you have been told, over and over, that Ada isn’t doing anything wrong. And when dbzer0 community members like me complained that the blahaj posts were the same fucking post over and over, our team fixed it. I get that you don’t like that, but this is the fediverse. Make your own instance to removed about Ada and kindly fuck off.
It’s not because Ada is doing anything wrong
Banning people who were never active on your instance and applying pressure on other instances to ban users is nothing wrong?
I am all for trans rights (see my recent post about nonsensical UK supreme Court judgement) and this is not the way to support these.
You can read that in a lot of ways
True, but context and content matters, and when the posters are all deemed YDI then we start to look like the place people come to whinge when their actions have consequences.
Some people get caught up in the righteousness of their cause and fail to consider how their actions affect others.
Seems to me that’s exactly what you are doing right now.
Possibly, but I’m just a user so my failings only affect me, and not the greater social media community.
Look at this guygal with nuanced takes
JFC… Ban him, he is dangerous!!!
Reported for abuse, shit lord.
Reported for abuse, shit lord.
Yeah, I’m sure the irony police are on their way.
It is content censorship… No feddit.UK rules were broken is my understanding
They proceeded to have a melt down over another admin not doing as they got told…
Enough with this shite, these people are not mature enough to be federated to gen pop
It is content censorship
Yes, exactly, it’s censoring transphobic content. That’s the whole point.
Removed by mod
… what
What I said in the above comment ;)
It is content censorship
Exactly.
People treating this like it is justified seem to misunderstand how the federated social media space works.
If the Blahj admins felt that the user wasn’t welcome in their communities then they could ban them. That’s the end of that user.
There is zero reason to contact the admins of another instance.
The reason they’re doing this is because they want to pressure the admins to change their content moderation policy to something that the Blahj admins (I mean Ada) approve of. If the admins feel that it is too onerous to do so, well then they can just apply the Blahj supplied user ban list to automate the process.
So now if Blahj bans you, you’ll get banned by every other instance that they’ve managed to bully and cajole into their censorship network. (This is easy to see, make a new account and get banned from Blahj. Look at your modlog and you’ll see pages of other non-Blahj communities that automatically ban you within seconds).
They don’t want the ability to ban users from Blahj, they want the ability to dictate to other instances which users should be banned. It has nothing to do with creating safe communities, they have all of the tools that they need to do that.
This is the very essence of power tripping.
I couldn’t have said better
Spot on.
All social media has these clowns but at least on fedi we can see them operate in the open. It turns out there is a lot more common sense out there if it ain’t getting its accounts banned all the time like on corpo socials.
To a certain extent similar instances with similar rules should share bans. It makes no sense for them to individually ban the same user for the same reason as they trudge through communities.
It is absolutely worth talking to admins on different instances to see what their rules are to deffedirate from any instance that is bound to be the nazi bar. With ought talking to the admins they have no idea if content is allowed or just hasn’t been removed yet.
The idea that they are a big powerful bully group is insane. Other instance admins can simply ignore them and suffer no meaningful consequences. The worst they can do is deffedirate.
Ideally everyone would be filtered in their space on an individual basis. This however is utterly impractical and filtering out problematic instances completely makes sense. It makes no sense for volunteers to give themselves more work to allow users from instances where they don’t want to deal with say 90% of their user base
similar instances with similar rules should share bans.
Welcome to Reddit.
To a certain extent similar instances with similar rules should share bans. It makes no sense for them to individually ban the same user for the same reason as they trudge through communities.
The problem with sharing ban lists is that it is ripe for abuse and only multiplies the damage done to a user by a wrongful ban.
I agree that the admins and moderation teams should be in contact with one another (and, in my experience they are) to handle issues like spamming or connection issues. But, in the end, responsibilities and obligations are pretty clear cut: Each instance handles its own moderation. The user was not in Blahj’s communities, was not a Blahj user and so an outside moderator or Admin has zero say in how that user is handled.
An administrator can ask another administrator to do something but they are under no obligation to do so. This includes things like banning a user or changing policy.
In this case, an administrator from another instance came to Feddit.uk and asked the administrators to ban a single user. The administrators investigated and determined that the user didn’t violate their policies. The administrator wasn’t happy with this, tried to argue and was ignored, they noticed that the admins were active elsewhere. Once they thought they were being ignored then they defederated the instance.
Notice how they don’t mention any disruption to their communities on their servers, they don’t say that the Feddit.uk instance was responsible for an unusual amount of banned users or any other reason that would lead to the conclusion that they needed to defederate.
My read of it is: the admin asked for a ban, was brushed off and then they were angry at being ignored so they defederated the instance and posted a justification loaded with emotional terms and light on facts and reasons.
This is, at best, an interpersonal problem between Admins, not a moderation issue like it is being framed. So, PTB
Good decision by Ada. I’m also quite pleased with how many instance mates stood up in here to defend blahaj’s decision.
PS: It occurs to me we might need a name for our peeps. I.e. like one talks about “lemmings” or “redditors”, we could use something for members of the divisions by zero. Edit
Dbzer0 users. Easiest way to use it for other instances as well
Would users of PieFed become PieHeads? 😜
Yes but, counterpoint: Boring.
Beezers.
Some suggestions:
- NaNs
- Infinitesimals
- Zeroids
- ∞s
Mmm naan
How are people still struggling with the basic concept that the person who runs Blahaj can do what they want with Blahaj?
All I get from this type of moaning is: “I joined a decentralised platform and now disagree with decentralisation in action.”
If this kind of action is what it takes for Blahajists to protect their necks then this is how it’s gonna be…
They’re not struggling at all, just supremely butthurt that they’re not being given a direct platform to abuse people.
Hit the nail right on the head here, they’re whining because the trans people won’t allow them to debate and strawman their existence. I’m happy that Blahaj challenges socially acceptable transphobia and I really wish more people would do it. These types of transphobes shouldn’t feel welcome anywhere
with trans peopleat all.Blahaj should do more like this.
fair for both sides, I don’t see a PTB here.
Removed by mod
I feel like this community serves a great purpose. And I’m a massive fan of drinking my tea and reading all the drama it attracts. But I am just beyond tired of the same handful of commenters popping up to always agree with whoever is opposed to blahaj.
I give this one a YDI. Anybody posting anything transphobic who gets caught by Ada is gonna be banned. Any instance with a mod or admin who makes transphobic posts or comments will get defederated. No one is entitled to having their content served on Ada’s servers, and the people who join blahaj know that, and seem to appreciate it.
Which is sort of why I always wind up agreeing with her. Her server has clear, concise beliefs, and clear, concise administration, and she has the clear-throated consent of her governed or they would leave.
The only server whose vibe I appreciate more is divide by zero. Shout-out to what I feel is the most neurospicy, nonconformist bunch of pirates I ever met.
Dawwww!
That’s why I chose blahaj zone as my instance. It’s nice not having to justify my existence
Yeah, Ada’s modding may be seen as heavy-handed by some, but that’s largely because it’s a reaction to the fact basically nowhere is safe for people who are trans. Maintaining a truly trans-inclusive space requires active heavy-handed moderation, because going easy or remaining passive just leads to transphobes sneaking in.
She should go harder.
Just a sense check here, are you asserting that Ada is a PTB for defederating from feddit.uk after their admins failed to take action?
Blajah Zone is specifically run as a safe space for trans folks, so it’s an emphatic YDI to feddit.uk from me.
Given that the UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the legal definition of a woman in the UK is based on biological sex, and the supposedly Labour PM Starmer is running with it (wtf Starmer???), it’s not surprising to me that TERFs and their supporters are coming out of the woodwork on feddit.uk.
Fuck TERFs and fuck Starmer for jumping on Trump’s anti-DEI bandwagon just to pander to transphobic voters.
I’m not asserting anything. My motivation was exactly what it says in the opening post. I think discussion about these things is important.
Sadly it seems I’ve made a mistake and that this sub might have been the wrong place to post. I didn’t realise this community did PTB / YDI style determinations and yes, I failed to read the side bar prior to posting.
Unfortunately it seems like there is some actual discussion happening so it feels wrong to just delete the post at this point. I was going to report my own post but it seems that’s not possible?
Thank you for facilitating discussions on this. Sorry for my ignorance, but what are PTB/YDI determinations? Not sure what I found on duckduckgo is relevant.
Power Tripping Bastard / You Deserve It
Yes, if you were just looking to report the news, the comm blaze pointed out might better. For the popcorn takes [email protected] might be more appropriate.
We have [email protected] for this kind of conversations
Yeah that’s what prompted my question really, because I wasn’t sure how it fitted the format. I guess if we explicitly make the subject whether the feddit admin(s) deserved the defederation, then I guess it kind of fits the format though. And it’s nice to see such a strong show of support for Ada and Blajah.
OP seems pretty neutral and this is just a “here’s what’s going on in lemmy moderation/administration”.
Then why did they post about it in this community?
100%. If this was an information only style post, they wouldn’t be saying that it should’ve allowed debate… and we have a whole fediverse lore sub specifically for info.
They pointed elsewhere they didn’t understand the purpose of this comm.
Oh, hadn’t considered that it was a misunderstanding. Those seem so rare nowadays.
I wasn’t sure how to take the post, so that’s why I wanted a sense check. But yeah, I assume you are correct.
Borderline YDI.
Reasoning for that is that the decision to defederate is one that is in line with the stated goals of blahaj. They have made it clear that they will defederate, ban, or otherwise use the available lemmy tool to allow blahaj to serve as a safe, sheltered place for people that are under siege by the world at large.
Ergo, this can’t be a power trip as it isn’t arbitrary, or outside of stated goals. Were I a blahaj admin, I would have taken similar steps to maintain the instance as intended, even though I tend to look on defederation as a last ditch tool in general. You can’t maintain a truly safe space without aggressive defenses.
If blahaj was established as a general purpose instance, this would be power tripping. But it wasn’t, and isn’t a general instance. It’s like beehaw was; they’re using lemmy as the underpinning software, but the instance has a different goal than the typical ones. The federation status is one that’s nice but not necessary for the instance to achieve its primary goal.
This is more equivalent to a forum blocking links to breitbart, only at a bigger scale; curation rather than control for control’s sake.
However, I want to make it clear that .uk didn’t do anything wrong as an instance. That’s why it’s “borderline” YDI. It’s only YDI in the sense that the instance policy is incompatible with the instance goals of blahaj. The decision to aggressively moderate dog whistles is a difficult one, as dog whistles change over time, and are not always something every admin is going to hate resources to do.
Now, once you’re aware of a dog whistle, you have a few choices. One is to hide your head in the sand and pretend it isn’t anything at all. Another is to remove that specific occurrence, and do nothing else. You can delay a decision until you have time to verify that it is a dog whistle (you don’t have to just accept someone’s word that it is, no matter who is saying it). You can choose to not give a fuck. You can even agree with the dog whistle and directly support it. You’d be an asshole if you chose that option, but it is an option.
And there’s in betweens of all those.
The .uk admin decided to refer to their standing policy and take no action. Since it is a standing policy, it isn’t a direct support for the bigotry, only an expression of some factor that leads them to choose not to tale actions outside of instance policy. That factor may be something unpleasant, but that’s not the same as being something like bigotry, or even apathy. We don’t have anything at the time I’m writing this book from a .uk admin giving further insight. In other words, while I don’t agree with their choice, they didn’t do anything wrong either, unless there’s some evidence of bigotry on their end. And no, just not agreeing to remove a single comment or post is not enough evidence to determine that.
From my end of things, though I won’t go far into it because I don’t believe in derailing the main goal of this community, dog whistles are so common now, and have been so effective that they get picked up by people that aren’t expressly bigoted, they should be as aggressively monitored as possible. But nobody can keep up with all of them, even just one targeted branch of the practice. I try to keep track of the ones that are most relevant to my personal areas of militancy, and I keep running into new ones because the people creating them change them so frequently. But, when reported, they should be taken seriously, and after confirmation, be treated just the same as slurs and other hate speech. I also recognize that nobody is obligated to act before confirmation, and that it may not always be possible to confirm that a newish dogwhistle is one. It takes time for such knowledge to circulate.
There is only one part I don’t agree with…
.uk didn’t do anything wrong as an instance.
Inaction is also an action. I read that inaction as implicit support, regardless of any statements otherwise.
Fair enough.
If I may, allow me to explain why I think it was a not wrong decision. Now, notice how I phrased it this time, please. It is definitely different in implication from my original phrasing, and that does represent some thought that has occurred since the time of the comment.
.uk is run by multiple admins. It is run as something between a collective and something akin to a democracy within the admin team. When it comes to making a decision for the instance that would require a change to policy, or a deviation from policy, a single admin making the decision without consulting the others would be a bet difficult choice.
It would require that admin to explain their decision going against established policy, possibly creating a big problem, one that could result in long term instability for the instance, possibly even the breaking of an instance.
A single admin holding to policy means that the instance is running as intended. The policies may need changing, but it isn’t a decision that is an emergency. There’s plenty of time for admins to discuss things, debate, weigh possibilities, come up with a plan, verify the plan would be effective, maybe even explore the possibilities publicly.
A delay is not a bad thing, when the issue is one that requires a change to policy. Since the admins have stated that they are discussing it, and that their reason for delay isn’t support for the comments in question, their decision to move slowly is not wrong as an instance. To the contrary, with it not being an emergency, it’s the smart decision.
Now, I’ll also say that the specific admin Ada contacted has publicly stated that they’re concerned about running afoul of UK regulations, and thus are weighing that in as part of any decisions regarding policies on dogwhistles as a form of transphobia, I’ll add that the specific admin did not make a wrong decision either.
However! As an individual admin, they did do something wrong, but not about the decision itself. Poor communication about internal matters when dealing with a credible issue reported by a reliable and known member of the fediverse that is also an admin and would understand even the most barebones explanation was a bad decision. I hesitate to call it wrong, but it fits that word well enough in this context for it to be acceptable, imo.
So, o would amend my previous opinion “didn’t do anything wrong as an instance” to “didn’t make a wrong decision as an instance”, as it more accurately reflects both the events as known to me at this time, and my opinion on those events. I hope it obvious that if more information comes to light, that opinion could, and almost certainly would, change if the new information was relevant to the previous events.
I say it that way because if .uk decided to just allow dogwhistles to go unchallenged and to stay up because of that, it would be wrong, in my opinion; but it wouldn’t change whether or not previous actions were appropriate or not unless there was an indication that was the intent all along.
Now, I also have to say that inaction being implicit support isn’t true in all cases all the time, and that statements do matter (or should) in coming to the conclusion that that is what’s occuring, but I don’t think anyone has to agree with me on those two subjects. They’re tangential to the issue here, in c/ptb to begin with, and I do believe that when the issue is dogwhistles, it does hold true with certain criteria met, so I agree in this case anyway.
It would require that admin to explain their decision going against established policy
The first rule:
No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia
It would be entirely under that first rule to remove it. There is nothing to explain other than “Rule 1”.
So I will firmly disagree. This was not only a communication problem, but a complete lack of moderation by their own rules. There is no way to allow the comment without them changing the rule.
Leaving that comment up is and was implicit support for the comment by saying it was not against the rules.
I went back through the two main threads just now, and see no updates.
With that in mind, I do believe that if the comments haven’t been removed, at least temporarily, the matter has gone on too long. It has been long enough to verify the dogwhistle is in common enough use that even if the person using it didn’t know what it means, a moderator or admin should know and have taken action.
Even with the shitty state of search engines nowadays, it is possible to find out that a specific dogwhistle is known and in use within a few hours. Since it was something that I ran into months ago, it’s easy to confirm with A Wikipedia search
Since the recent UK court ruling is absolutely not applicable to this situation, and they’ve given no other reasoning for a decision being delayed on this matter, I don’t feel it would be reasonable for the comments to still be up. I don’t know if they are. Nobody has linked to them and shouldn’t have because brigading sucks even for this kind of thing, so I don’t know if the comments are still there.
Which, I think that brings us into complete agreement at this time. Rule 1 should have been applied already. If it hasn’t been, then it is implicit support for the comments.
Since the recent UK court ruling is absolutely not applicable to this situation, and they’ve given no other reasoning for a decision being delayed on this matter, I don’t feel it would be reasonable for the comments to still be up.
100% agreed.
Which is a valid viewpoint, obviously.
However, dogwhistles are a difficult thing to moderate. You first have to be aware that they exist (they are), then you have to be aware that a specific phrase is one (they do now), you’d have to verify that the report is one (still up in the air), and then decide what to do about it (still in the air).
Moderation does not have to be instant. Even if you have dozens of moderators or admins, expecting action even within an hour isn’t something to reasonably expect. Now, I haven’t gone back through and checked to see what they’ve decided at this point, if anything, but you and I are still talking about the principle itself, so I don’t know if that matters for this part of this particular discussion. As in, was the delay at the time of the post reasonable.
I agree with you that a comment using that dogwhistle needs to be removed. I agree that if it isn’t, then there’s a problem. The only point I see that we don’t agree on so far is how quickly an admin is expected to step in on a moderation case.
By this point, I would expect at least an update on the matter, some kind of “this is where we are in the process”. But, at the time of the post and the start of this particular conversation, I believe that they were still well within the range of an acceptable time frame for a policy decision on an unfamiliar dogwhistle.
Again, I’m still talking about events as of the time we started this chain. If you want to shift to what would be an acceptable state now we can, but I’ll need to go through both of the posts I’m aware of and update.
You first have to be aware that they exist (they are)
Agreed
then you have to be aware that a specific phrase is one
They were informed, yes. Whether they knew before or not isn’t known, but also irrelevant at this point.
you’d have to verify that the report is one
Negative. They are aware the phrase is a dogwhistle. The user realizing that or not is no longer relevant. Remove and notify of the reason.
and then decide what to do about it
Adhere to rule 1 of their instance.
Moderation does not have to be instant.
When the admin is on, available, responds, then stops responding but continues to make comments/posts… Question answered. They decided against moderating.
I don’t believe anyone said anything about “instant”. What was said was they went unresponsive.
I agree with you that a comment using that dogwhistle needs to be removed
It IS a dogwhistle.
Whether a user realizes that or not is irrelevant to moderation.
As in, was the delay at the time of the post reasonable.
Not remotely relevant at this point.
- Admins were aware
- Admins understand and agree its a dogwhistle
- Admins chose not to address and stopped communicating while continuing to do other things on the instance.
Not “We’re figuring it out”, just… Radio silence.
No, sorry, not relevant at all.
I believe that they were still well within the range of an acceptable time frame for a policy decision on an unfamiliar dogwhistle.
Not without saying as much. And that has nothing to do with their reasoning - they agree its a dog whistle.
A reasoned and balanced analysis. Bravo.
I find it absolutely crazy that they de-federated over 1 user, when a block would suffice.
I don’t agree with transphobia (of course), but Blåhaj can’t demand that their rules be enforced in other instances.
but Blåhaj can’t demand that their rules be enforced in other instances.
They can, or choose not to interoperate with servers that don’t have their best interests at heart. That’s the whole point of defederation and people honestly need to understand that. I know in the beginning the Fediverse propaganda painted this place as a free speech safe-haven. That is a lie, this place has rules and servers expect you to follow them. They aren’t obligated to tolerate bullshit. Blahaj.zone isn’t obligated to tolerate or listen to transphobia.
Also one important fact here is that feddit.uk themselves has rules against transphobia. It’s not even about following blahaj’s rules, it’s about them not following their own rules now.
I think this take is a bit disingenuous. From what I can tell, LBZ defederated because the admins ignored requests from ada to reign in transphobia/clarify rules around dealing with transphobic comments or posts.
Defederation is the opposite of enforcing one instance’s rules on another instance. Both sets of instance rules are still intact. LBZ has chosen to stop federation because of their own instance rules. If changes are made and the instance rules and enforcement no longer break LBZ’s instance rules, I’m willing to bet ada and LBZ would be open to federate again.
Extremely disingenuous given the whole chain failed for an instance serving a geographic zone literally nicknamed “TERF island” that recently made an extremely transphobic ruling in parliament
Context reaaaaaaaaally fuckin’ matters
but Blåhaj can’t demand that their rules be enforced in other instances.
They can and they did.
I think most instances have a baseline of what is not acceptable, even on other instances. This is one of those baseline rules.
terfs fuck off.
Think I blocked most of their communities anyway… Most of them seemed to be trans memes I had no interest in.
Isn’t this central feature of how the fediverse works great?
I mean, yeah?
Heavily moderated ultra safe space communities are free to keep to themselves and a small pool of other similar instances.
You can’t expect a small general purpose instance to police their users with an iron fist wherever they go.
The tankies have their little corner. I assume the Nazis have theirs.
The fediverse was never a way to link everybody, because frankly, not everybody wants to be linked to everyone else. That’s how you end up with Facebook…
The only thing really missing from Lemmy is a way to block all comments from users from a blocked instance, where at the moment I can only block their communities.
Edit: I think it’s further complicated by the lack of a real way to do an IP ban. There’s a lot to be said for that tool, and because the fediverse doesn’t really pass that info around (and nor should it), it’s hard to block problem users from other instances.
