Defederation is not censorship. It is refusing to listen to or platform things that you don’t agree with i.e. bigots or nazis. Lemmy.world has defederated exploding heads so it stands to reason that they wouldn’t want to listen to the same assholes spewing the same crap on rammy.site
Comment on Please Consider Defederating from rammy.site
eros@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You actually don’t need to campaign to defederate every instance that offends you. Lemmy provides the ability to report posts and block posts, users, and instances. I get that there are a lot of shitheads, assholes, and idiots on the Internet… Defederating might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in many cases. Hell, if you listened to everyone shouting about the assholes you shouldn’t support no one would be on Lemmy at all. Also, small I hobby instances are run by people with lives. Perhaps the admin will have time in the near future to clean up what’s been reported. Or maybe it really is abandoned. We just don’t know.
When someone starts campaigning to defederate an instance it immediately starts my senses tingling because I think I’m getting a version of the story… and it’s doubtful I’ll hear the other side. It offends the same part of as people complaining about downvotes did on Reddit. Take advice from a cartoon dog. “It’s not the done thing.” Or it shouldn’t be, at least.
Had this post just been letting people know what you observed about the instance I would be more moved to investigate and perhaps report posts and block the instance. I might still if I see hateful speech in All… but the implication that their hate will fester, breed, and spread if they aren’t immediately defederated is using the same tactics that right wing populists are… by dehumanizing people and playing on other people’s fear. It is just as wrong for you as it is for them to do it.
PowerfulTurtle@rammy.site 10 months ago
MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Dude, defederation is a form of censorship, and there’s nothing wrong with censoring false and hateful views.
fkn@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It literally isn’t.
MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Dictionary says censorship is:
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Is deplatforming not suppression? Are we not talking about something that we find unacceptable?
It’s censorship, and that’s ok, because it’s the only real tool we have to fight the spread of bigoted lies, because the truth doesn’t work on the stupid and disingenuous.
mean_bean279@lemmy.world 10 months ago
They’re allowed to freely say whatever they want on their instance, but we don’t have to listen. Y’all view defederation like I’m fucking stabbing Caesar in the back again.
RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’ve gotten downvoted, and you’ll probably get some more downvotes. But you you took the time to write a thoughtful post, and you made a good point.
But ultimately I feel your point is wrong. Defederating from such an instance isn’t the equivalent of dehumanizing people you disagree with. Rather, it’s limiting the (potential) scope of harm people with bad intentions can cause.
I get you’d like to see “both sides” or have a fuller picture, but there is enough evidence already that there really isn’t any possible “good” reason for their speech, and we should do what we can to limit its reach.
rist097@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What evidence? Who is them?
Serdan@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Don’t JAQ off in public
dublet@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Karl Popper entered the chat.
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
CapraObscura@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is and always has been semantic bullshit.
There is no fucking paradox of intolerance.
Because you do not “tolerate” the violence that intolerance leads to, you ALLOW it.
Shooting a fucking Nazi in the face isn’t intolerance. It’s basic preventative maintenance for democracy.
CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Personally I’m more concerned about the Spiral of Silence.
The spiral of silence theory, proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in the 1970s, explains how public opinion is formed and how individuals may withhold expressing their views if they perceive them to be in the minority. This theory is often applied to political and social contexts, including the rise of ideologies like fascism.
In the context of fascism or any other controversial ideology, the spiral of silence suggests that when people believe their opinions are not widely supported, they tend to remain silent and refrain from expressing their views publicly. This silence, in turn, can create an illusion that the majority supports the prevailing ideology, even if it might not be the case. As a result, individuals who disagree with the ideology might feel isolated and discouraged from speaking out, contributing to the seeming growth and acceptance of the ideology.
I don’t think people tolerate intolerance so much as they’re scared to speak out.
JoelJ@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s always refreshing to read an intelligent and well thought out response. The world needs more nuance!
CapraObscura@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You mean “a response I agree with.”
And by “nuance” you mean “PEOPLE THAT USE THE N WORD REGULARLY!”
JoelJ@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I mean I guess I do agree with the sentiment that defederating shouldn’t be the default response to finding offensive content on another instance.
If you check the highest scoring comment on this post you’ll see it’s also me, because I also find the content on that instance highly offensive. I’m just wary because Lemmy still feels very new, and the our behaviours now might set a precedent for the future, and I don’t want every disagreement to end up with another instance defederated.
And no I don’t use the N word regularly, I’m not even from the US
rist097@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Amin!
hal_5700X@lemmy.world 10 months ago
People can block users and communities. We have the tools, so use them.
fkn@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It giving astounds me that people literally don’t get his federation works. The whole giving point of federation is that we can defederate from instances that have garbage in them.
This isn’t censorship.
People are free to go be human garbage in their own instance, and I am glad that we can throw out the trash.